Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 1 of 85
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
TIMOTHY B. LENNON, MARK S. BELENCHIA, ALFRED L. ANTONSEN, JR., JOSEPH PISCITELLI, SHAUN A. DOUGHERTY, and MARK CRAWFORD,
Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-cv-2618-PLF v.
UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CATHOLIC BISHOPS and
HOLY SEE, in its Capacity as a Foreign State (State of the Vatican City), and in its Capacity as an Unincorporated Association and Head of an International Religious Organization,
Defendants.
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 2 of 85
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NATURE OF THE CASE ...... 1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ...... 6
PARTIES ...... 11
FACTS ...... 28
I. A brief history of Clergy child sex abuse in the Catholic Church in the United States ...... 28
II. Defendants have repeatedly failed and refused to properly address Clergy child sex abuse and compensate the victims ...... 39
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ...... 46
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF/CAUSES OF ACTION ...... 49
COUNT I Assault...... 49
COUNT II Breach of Fiduciary Duty...... 51
COUNT III Negligence/Gross Negligence ...... 53
COUNT IV Negligence Per Se ...... 57
COUNT V Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ...... 62
COUNT VI Public Nuisance ...... 63
COUNT VII Conspiracy ...... 66
COUNT VIII Aiding and Abetting ...... 67
COUNT IX Medical Monitoring ...... 69
COUNT X Restitution ...... 70
COUNT XI Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ...... 71
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/AGENCY ...... 76
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY DOCTRINE ...... 77
TOLLING OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION ...... 78 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 3 of 85
RELIEF REQUESTED ...... 79
JURY DEMAND ...... 81
Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 4 of 85
[B]ut people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.1
Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather, expose them.2
Plaintiffs Timothy B. Lennon, Mark S. Belenchia, Alfred L. Antonsen, Jr., Joseph
Piscitelli, Shaun A. Dougherty, and Mark Crawford (collectively “Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons in the United States3 (the “Class Members”), and based upon known facts and on information and belief, respectfully complain of the actions of
Defendants United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (“USCCB”) and the Holy See, in its
Capacity as a Foreign State (State of the Vatican City), and in its Capacity as an Unincorporated
Association and Head of an International Religious Organization (“Holy See”) (together,
“Defendants”).
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This case is about the endemic, systemic, rampant, and pervasive rape and sexual
abuse of Plaintiffs and Class Members perpetrated by Catholic Church4 cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, sisters, lay leaders, members of Catholic religious orders, educators, and other of Defendants’ personnel, members, agents, and representatives throughout the United
States currently and/or formerly employed by, and/or under Defendants’ command, supervision,
direction, and/or control while serving in active ministry (collectively, “Clergy” or “Catholic
1 John 3:19-20 (NIV).
2 Ephesians 5:11 (NIV)
3 Unless otherwise noted, the term “United States” hereafter includes the United States and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
4 Unless otherwise noted, the term “Catholic Church” means the Catholic Church in the United States, including the United States and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
1 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 5 of 85
Clergy”)—with the full knowledge of, protection by, and cover-up by Defendants. Defendants
have known about the rampant Clergy child sex abuse in the Catholic Church for decades, but
have done nothing substantive to eliminate it, safeguard and protect vulnerable children,
compensate the victims (including Plaintiffs and Class Members), or punish the abusive
Clergy—even though they had a duty to do so.
2. Rather, as part of their Clergy sex abuse game plan, Defendants have routinely
and systematically (i) protected the abusive Clergy, (ii) taken extraordinary measures to conceal
their wrongful conduct, (iii) moved them from parish to parish, without warning parish members
or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices,5 (iv) failed and refused to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, and—incredibly—(v) promoted the abusive Clergy. Defendants’ wrongful acts are ongoing and continuous.
3. The sexual abuse of, or contact with, a minor under the age of 16 is a violation of a Catholic priest's obligation of celibacy set forth in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon
Law (Canons 132 and 277, respectively)—both of which were legislated by Defendant USCCB and its predecessor(s). Because Clergy child sex abuse is particularly heinous, it is designated a crime or delict in in both the 1917 and 1983 Codes of Canon Law (Canons 2359 and 1395,
5 Abusive Clergy often were quietly transferred from one parish to another to give the accused a new start and avoid the possibility of added problems and exposure in the parish in which the sexual abuse took place. Clergy transfers occurred with little or no public explanation and no advance warning to parishes. On information and belief, there is documented evidence that in numerous dioceses in this country, Clergy reported for child sex abuse were transferred several times. In some cases, abusive Clergy were sent away to study, sent on retreats, sent to psychiatrists, or sent to special rehabilitation centers. In other instances, on information and belief, Defendant USCCB members deemed priests unsuitable for ministry in the home diocese yet recommended them for ministry in another diocese. In short, and even though Defendants knew about the rampant recidivism and that transfers do not solve the problem, they continued to engage in this practice to the detriment of children, such as Plaintiffs and Class Members when they were abused as minors.
2 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 6 of 85
respectively). These Canons are based on longstanding ecclesiastical laws going back to the
earliest days of the Catholic Church because sex with minor children is particularly
reprehensible. In fact, these Canons require Clergy guilty of child sex abuse to be punished with
appropriate penalties, including dismissal as a cleric. Clergy child sex abuse is considered an
aggravated offense if the abusive Clergy used his or her office or position to aid in the perpetration of the offense.
4. Since at least 1940 (and possibly earlier) Defendants have engaged (and continue to engage) in unlawful and intentional schemes to cover up and conceal Clergy child sex abuse so as to avoid compensating the victims (including Plaintiffs and Class Members), maintain
Defendants’ reputations, and maintain and expand their operations in the United States, and, in the process, cheated and defrauded Plaintiffs and Class members out of their childhood, youth, innocence, virginity, families, jobs, finances, assets—in short, their lives. Defendants (and the
Clergy), inter alia, (i) misrepresented to Plaintiffs and Class Members—through their words and deeds—that they were persons of faith who had Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ best interests at heart, and then, knowing that Plaintiffs and Class Members relied on their representations and put their faith and trust in the Clergy as their spiritual leaders, took advantage of their positions of power and influence by sexually abusing Plaintiffs and Class Members, (ii) misrepresented to
Plaintiffs, Class Members, each other, the Clergy, and/or other third parties—explicitly and/or implicitly—that the wrongful sexual abuse did not occur (denial and deceit), (iii) shifted the focus of the allegations to Plaintiffs and Class Members by defaming them as liars, alleging
Plaintiffs and Class Members falsified the charges, or that they suffered from some mental illness giving rise to their allegations of Clergy child sex abuse, and (iv) actively and fraudulently concealed the Clergy’s wrongful sexual abuse by, among other things, (a) burying the charges deep within Defendants’ organizations and affirmatively deciding not to publicize,
3 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 7 of 85 properly investigate, or act on them, (b) failing and refusing to terminate, or even discipline, abusing Clergy, (c) moving the abusive Clergy from parish to parish, without warning church members or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices, failing and refusing to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, and promoting abusive Clergy, and (iv) using all available means to look the other way, deny, obstruct the investigation of and conceal Clergy child sex abuse. Defendants’ wrongful acts are ongoing and continuous.
5. The unified fashion in which Clergy child sex abuse was (and continues to be) handled demonstrates a meeting of Defendants’ minds as to how best to prevent public knowledge of the abuse, avoid criminal prosecution, and suppress potential claims. On information and belief, Defendant USCCB member bishops cooperated with each other regarding the placement of problem Clergy. Defendants also engaged in a common plan to mislead the families of victims regarding the facts to suppress potential claims. Cases across the
United States, regardless of the dioceses involved, were handled in this common fashion. The goal of their concerted action was (and continues to be) to prevent public exposure of this problem and victims’ claims. Their concerted action, carried out within the USCCB forum, is ongoing and continuous even after medical evidence clearly established that extensive harm to victims, their families and society results from Clergy child sex abuse.
6. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above- referenced wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, victim defamation, and conspiracy of silence, Plaintiffs and
Class Members have suffered (and will continue to suffer), inter alia, physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injuries, harm, and economic damages.
Defendants have robbed Plaintiffs and Class Members of their childhood, youth, innocence,
4 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 8 of 85
virginity, families, jobs, finances, assets—in short, their lives.6 Defendants intentionally engaged
(and continue to engage) in these wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and
concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, defamation, and conspiracy of
silence to their financial and reputational benefit, and to Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ personal,
mental, psychological, and financial detriment.
7. Defendants’ wrongful conduct flagrantly violates the common law of the states,
Catholic Church canon law, and customary international law, including treaties and conventions adopted and signed by Defendant Holy See. These laws make Clergy child sex abuse a crime, impose duties to report known or suspected child abuse, require organizations and individuals to act in the best interests of children, and establish civil responsibility—all with the goal of protecting children from harm. Clergy child sex abuse violates international human rights standards and conventions adopted by virtually all civilized nations. The financial, emotional, and psychological fallout from Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct and corresponding cover-up has had (and continues to have) a devastating impact on Plaintiffs, Class
Members, and their families.
6 As set forth above, Clergy child sex abuse inflicts a variety of effects on the victims. But there also is a severe spiritual impact. The abuse has caused numerous victims to not only abandon the Catholic Church, but look upon it with disdain, fear and even hatred. Many are or were unable to make an emotional and intellectual distinction between the Clergy, the institutional authorities, and the Catholic Church itself. The Clergy and Defendants comprise the Catholic Church. The church was their source of spiritual security. Faith in God was intimately bound up with faith in and loyalty to the church. It was the church, through the Clergy and Defendants, that forgave sins. Then it became the forgiver committing the sins. Many victims— including Plaintiffs and Class Members—feel that they have been robbed of their faith and spiritual security. They cannot go to the Catholic Church for relief because the focal point of their trust, the Clergy and Defendants, have betrayed them. The Clergy, with Defendants’ knowledge, led them into the worst kind of sin—sins of the flesh. The spiritual impact of Clergy child sex abuse is profound and related to patterns of self-destructive behavior often found in many Clergy child sex abuse victims.
5 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 9 of 85
8. Plaintiffs, therefore, for themselves and Class Members, bring this action against
Defendants as a national class action under state common law for engaging in the above-
described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment,
obstructive behavior regarding investigations, defamation and conspiracy of silence. Defendants’
above-described unlawful actions and inaction constitute assault, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress,
public nuisance, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.
9. Plaintiffs, therefore, for themselves and Class Members, seek to recover from
Defendants damages and compensation in the form of (i) compensatory damages (or, alternatively, restitution), (ii) economic damages, (iii) punitive damages, (iv) medical monitoring, (v) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (vi) attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs. Plaintiffs, for themselves and Class Members, also seek declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Defendants to, inter alia, comply with various state statutes requiring them to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities, terminate the abusive Clergy, identify the abusive Clergy to the general public so that parents may protect their children going forward, release documents evidencing such Clergy abuse to achieve transparency, and such other relief the Court deems just and proper.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(d) (CAFA), because (i) there are 100 or more Class Members, (ii) at least one Class
Member is a citizen of a state diverse from the citizenship of Defendants, and (iii) the matter in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000 USD, exclusive of interest and costs.
11. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a) because the matter in controversy as to each individual Plaintiff exceeds the
6 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 10 of 85 sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and the controversy is between citizens of a state or states (the United States) and a foreign state (Defendant Holy See).
12. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs allege violations of customary international law as codified in international treaties, including, without limitation, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Customary international law, as well as treaties and acts of Congress, are the “supreme law of the land” under Article VI of the United States
Constitution. Issues of interpretation and application of such customary international law provide federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
13. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against
Defendant Holy See under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) because it is a “foreign state” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1603 falling within the exceptions to sovereign immunity set forth in 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1605(a)(1); (a)(2); (a)(5).
14. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction).
15. This Court has in personam jurisdiction over Defendants because at all relevant times, Defendants, directly and/or through their agents and representatives (including, without limitation, Defendant USCCB) resided, were found, and conducted business in the District of
Columbia. This Court also has in personam jurisdiction over Defendants because at all relevant times, they directly and/or through the Clergy, their agents and representatives (including, without limitation in the case of Defendant Holy See, Defendant USCCB), (i) caused tortious injury by the above-described wrongful acts or omissions in the District of Columbia, (ii) caused tortious injury in the District of Columbia by the above-described wrongful acts or omissions outside the District of Columbia, and/or (iii) engaged in a persistent course of conduct in the
7 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 11 of 85
District of Columbia and the tortious injury occurring in the District of Columbia arose out
of the above-described wrongful acts or omissions.
16. This Court also has in personam jurisdiction over Defendant Holy See under 28
U.S.C. § 1330(b) because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against
Defendant Holy See under 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a) and service of process will be made under 28
U.S.C § 1608(a).
17. Exception to sovereign immunity—waiver—under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605(a)(1).
Defendant Holy See has implicitly or explicitly waived any rights under, and/or is estopped from
raising, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C. § 1604) as a defense to suit by, among
other things, (i) failing to raise such defense for decades in settling, acquiescing in, and
approving settlements of child rape and sexual abuse claims against itself, the Catholic Church
and/or its Clergy, agents, and representatives (including, without limitation, Defendant USCCB)
in the United States over which it exercises absolute control and authority under its own canon
law, regulations, directives, policies, and procedures, and (ii) the transmission to, and receipt from, the United States of directives, orders, policies, procedures, and other direction or guidance, whether explicit or implicit. Defendant Holy See’s wrongful conduct presents fundamental issues of human rights and the protection of children. Such actions have never been given immunity by the United States government. Moreover, fundamental human rights violations were subject to accountability in United States courts prior to the enactment of the
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. In enacting the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, there is no evidence that the United States Congress intended to immunize such fundamental human rights of children from accountability in United States courts. Defendant Holy See, therefore, is not entitled to sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1).
8 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 12 of 85
18. Exception to sovereign immunity for conducting commercial activity under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1605(a)(2). Defendant Holy See’s wrongful conduct is based on commercial activity carried on in the United States, acts performed in the United States in connection with
Defendant Holy See’s commercial activity elsewhere, and/or upon acts outside the territory of the United States in connection with Defendant Holy See’s commercial activity elsewhere that caused a direct effect in the United States. Defendant Holy See’s commercial activities encompass both a regular course of commercial conduct, including, without limitation, fundraising activities, real estate transactions, and other commercial transactions or acts. Such commercial activities have had (and continue to have) substantial contact with the United States, including (i) acts performed in the United States, (ii) funds raised from persons, entities, agencies, agents, and representatives (including, without limitation, Defendant USCCB) in the
United States and sent to Defendant Holy See from the United States, (iii) real estate purchased and sold in the United States, (iv) explicit and implicit policy directives sent by Defendant Holy
See to Defendant USCCB, Clergy, and other agents and representatives in the United States, and
(v) other substantial consequences for persons within the United States resulting from Defendant
Holy See’s actions—directly and/or under the doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine. Defendant Holy See, therefore, is not entitled to sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2).
19. Exception to sovereign immunity for causing personal injury in the United
States under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605(a)(5). Plaintiffs, for themselves and Class Members, seek money damages from Defendant Holy See for personal injuries in the United States caused— directly and/or the doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine—by Defendant Holy See’s tortious acts or omissions and/or the tortious acts or omissions of Defendant Holy See’s Clergy, agents, and representatives (including,
9 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 13 of 85
without limitation, Defendant USCCB) while acting within the scope of their office or
employment within the United States. Such acts within the United States include, without
limitation, the negligent hiring, supervision, direction, and/or control of Defendant Holy See’s
Clergy, agents and representatives (including, without limitation, Defendant USCCB) in the
United States, as effectuated within the United States, thereby resulting in a pattern of Clergy child sex abuse and serious personal injury to children in the United States. Defendant Holy
See’s failure to hire, supervise, direct, and/or control its Clergy, agents, and representatives
(including, without limitation, Defendant USCCB) in the United States constitutes a breach of
mandatory obligations under United States and international law. Nor do Defendant Holy See’s
longstanding directives and refusal to comply with various states’ criminal statutes mandating
the reporting of child rape and sexual abuse constitute “discretionary acts or functions.” The acts
and omissions of Defendant Holy See’s Clergy, agents, and representatives (including, without
limitation, Defendant USCCB) in covering up and concealing known criminal acts of child sex
abuse by its Clergy and other agents amount to criminal conduct by aiding, abetting, enabling,
and being in criminal complicity with the crime of child rape and sexual abuse, reckless
endangerment, and obstruction of justice. Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant Holy See do not arise out of malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights, but rather, arise out of the doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine, violations of customary international law, assault, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, public nuisance, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. Defendant
Holy See, therefore, is not entitled to sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5).
20. At all relevant times, and as set forth above, Defendants resided, were found, and
conducted business in the District of Columbia and/or a substantial part of the events or
10 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 14 of 85
omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in the District of Columbia. Accordingly,
venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C § 1391(a); (b); (f)(1); and (f)(3). Venue also is
proper in this District as to Defendant Holy See under 28 U.S.C § 1391(f)(4).
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
21. Plaintiff Timothy B. Lennon is a citizen and resident of Arizona. Plaintiff Lennon
is a Clergy child sex abuse victim and survivor. Plaintiff Lennon was a minor, United States
citizen, and resident of the State of Iowa at the time the Clergy sex abuse occurred. Beginning in
1959, when Plaintiff Lennon was 12 years old, he was sexually abused multiple times by Father
Peter Murphy, a priest at Blessed Sacrament in the Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa. Plaintiff Lennon
relied on Father Murphy as a person of faith who had his best interest at heart and put his faith
and trust in Father Murphy as his spiritual leader. With full knowledge that Plaintiff Lennon had
placed his faith and trust in him, Father Murphy violated this trust and took advantage of his position of power and influence by sexually abusing Plaintiff Lennon. Defendants knew (or should have known) that Father Murphy, who they employed, commanded, supervised, directed, and/or controlled, was guilty of child sex abuse—yet they did not prevent him from engaging in child sex abuse, or punish him for engaging in child sex abuse, but rather, engaged in a concerted action to cover-up Father Murphy’s child sex abuse. Father Murphy continued in his position as parish priest after the sexual abuse ended. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants’ (and Father Murphy’s) above-described wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Lennon has suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages. Plaintiff Lennon brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated Catholic Church Clergy child sex abuse victims in the United States.
11 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 15 of 85
22. Plaintiff Mark S. Belenchia is a citizen and resident of Mississippi. Plaintiff
Belenchia is a Clergy child sex abuse victim and survivor. Plaintiff Belenchia was a minor,
United States citizen, and resident of the State of Mississippi at the time the Clergy sex abuse
occurred. Beginning in 1968, when Plaintiff Belenchia was 12 years old, he was sexually abused
more than 75 times by Father Bernard Haddican, a priest in St. Mary’s Church Parish in the
Diocese of Jackson, in Shelby, Mississippi. Plaintiff Belenchia relied on Father Haddican as a
person of faith who had his best interest at heart and put his faith and trust in Father Haddican as
his spiritual leader. With full knowledge that Plaintiff Belenchia had placed his faith and trust in
him, Father Haddican violated this trust and took advantage of his position of power and
influence by sexually abusing Plaintiff Belenchia. Defendants knew (or should have known) that
Father Haddican, who they employed, commanded, supervised, directed, and/or controlled, was
guilty of child sex abuse—yet they did not prevent him from engaging in child sex abuse, or punish him for engaging in child sex abuse, but rather, engaged in a concerted action to cover-
up Father Haddican’s child sex abuse. Father Haddican continued in his position as parish priest
after the sexual abuse ended. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and Father
Haddican’s) above-described wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Belenchia has suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering in the form of suicidal ideation,
low self-esteem, depression and fear, and severe mental issues, including PTSD, and other actual
and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages. Plaintiff Belenchia brings this action on
behalf of himself and all similarly situated Catholic Church Clergy child sex abuse victims in the
United States.
23. Plaintiff Alfred L. Antonsen, Jr. is a citizen and resident of Illinois. Plaintiff
Antonsen is a Clergy child sex abuse victim and survivor. Plaintiff Antonsen was a minor,
United States citizen, and resident of the State of Illinois at the time the Clergy sex abuse
12 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 16 of 85
occurred. In 1962, when Plaintiff Antonsen was approximately 16 years old, he was sexually
abused by Father Michael P. Hogan, an Augustinian order priest on a trip to Wisconsin while he
was a student at St. Rita High School in the Archdiocese of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff Antonsen
relied on Father Hogan as a person of faith who had his best interest at heart and put his faith and
trust in Father Hogan as his spiritual leader. With full knowledge that Plaintiff Antonsen had
placed his faith and trust in him, Father Hogan violated this trust and took advantage of his
position of power and influence by sexually abusing Plaintiff Antonsen. Defendants knew (or
should have known) that Father Hogan, who they employed, commanded, supervised, directed,
and/or controlled, was guilty of child sex abuse—yet they did not prevent him from engaging in child sex abuse, or punish him for engaging in child sex abuse, but rather, engaged in a concerted action to cover-up Father Hogan’s child sex abuse. Father Hogan continued in his position as a religious order priest from the Midwest Augustinians after the sexual abuse ended.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and Father Hogan’s) above-described wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Antonsen has suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering in the form of alcoholism, and his education and sports suffered, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages. Plaintiff Antonsen brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated Catholic Church Clergy child sex abuse victims in the United States.
24. Plaintiff Joseph Piscitelli is a citizen and resident of California. Plaintiff Piscitelli is a Clergy child sex abuse victim and survivor. Plaintiff Piscitelli was a minor, United States citizen, and resident of the State of California at the time the Clergy sex abuse occurred. From
1969 to 1970, when Plaintiff Piscitelli was 14 years old, he was sexually abused multiple times by Father Steve Whelan, a member of the Salesian order, associated with the Oakland Diocese in
Richmond, California. Plaintiff Piscitelli relied on Father Whelan as a person of faith who had
13 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 17 of 85
his best interest at heart and put his faith and trust in Father Whelan as his spiritual leader. With
full knowledge that Plaintiff Piscitelli had placed his faith and trust in him, Father Whelan
violated this trust and took advantage of his position of power and influence by sexually abusing
Plaintiff Piscitelli. Defendants knew (or should have known) that Father Whelan, who they
employed, commanded, supervised, directed, and/or controlled, was guilty of child sex abuse—
yet they did not prevent him from engaging in child sex abuse, punish him for engaging in child
sex abuse, or compensate Plaintiff Piscitelli for being victimized by Father Whelan, but rather,
engaged in a concerted action to cover-up Father Whelan’s child sex abuse. Father Whelan
continued in his position as parish priest after the sexual abuse ended. As a direct and proximate
result of Defendants’ (and Father Whelan’s) above-described wrongful conduct, Plaintiff
Piscitelli has suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering
in the form of PTSD, emotional trauma, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and
economic damages. Plaintiff Piscitelli brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated Catholic Church Clergy child sex abuse victims in the United States.
25. Plaintiff Shaun A. Dougherty is a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff
Dougherty is a Clergy child sex abuse victim and survivor. Plaintiff Dougherty was a minor,
United States citizen, and resident of the State of Pennsylvania at the time the Clergy sex abuse
occurred. Beginning in 1980, and continuing through at least 1983, when Plaintiff Dougherty
was 10 years old, he was sexually abused multiple times by Father George Koharchik, a priest at
the St. Clement Church, Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Dougherty relied on Father Koharchik as a person of faith who had his best interest at heart and put his faith and trust in Father Koharchik as his spiritual leader. With full knowledge that Plaintiff Dougherty had placed his faith and trust in him, Father Koharchik violated this trust and took advantage of his position of power and influence by sexually abusing Plaintiff Dougherty. Defendants knew
14 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 18 of 85
(or should have known) that Father Koharchik, who they employed, commanded, supervised,
directed, and/or controlled, was guilty of child sex abuse—yet they did not prevent him from engaging in child sex abuse, punish him for engaging in child sex abuse, or compensate Plaintiff
Dougherty for being victimized by Father Koharchik, but rather, engaged in a concerted action to cover-up Father Koharchik’s child sex abuse. Father Koharchik continued in his position as parish priest after the sexual abuse ended. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and
Father Koharchik’s) above-described wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Dougherty has suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering in the form of severe mental injury, including a suicide attempt, substance abuse, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages. Plaintiff Dougherty brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated Catholic Church Clergy child sex abuse victims in the United States.
26. Plaintiff Mark Crawford is a citizen and resident of New Jersey. Plaintiff
Crawford is a Clergy child sex abuse victim and survivor. Plaintiff Crawford was a minor,
United States citizen, and resident of the State of New Jersey at the time the Clergy sex abuse occurred. Beginning in approximately 1977, and continuing through at least 1983, when Plaintiff
Crawford was 15 years old, he was sexually abused multiple times by Father Kenneth Martin, a priest in the St. Andrews Parish, in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. Plaintiff Crawford relied on Father Martin as a person of faith who had his best interest at heart and put his faith and trust in Father Martin as his spiritual leader. With full knowledge that Plaintiff Crawford had placed his faith and trust in him, Father Martin violated this trust and took advantage of his position of power and influence by sexually abusing Plaintiff Crawford. Defendants knew (or should have known) that Father Martin, who they employed, commanded, supervised, directed, and/or controlled, was guilty of child sex abuse—yet they did not prevent him from engaging in child sex abuse, or punish him for engaging in child sex abuse, but rather, engaged in a
15 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 19 of 85 concerted action to cover-up Father Martin’s child sex abuse. Father Martin continued in his position as parish priest, and was even promoted, after the sexual abuse ended. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and Father Martin’s) above-described wrongful conduct,
Plaintiff Crawford has suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering in the form of physical beatings and sexual abuse, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages. Plaintiff Crawford brings this action on behalf of himself and all similarly situated Catholic Church Clergy child sex abuse victims in the United States.
Defendant United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
27. Defendant USCCB is the episcopal conference and legislative body of the
Catholic Church. Defendant USCCB supervises, directs, and/or controls Catholic Clergy in the
United States. Defendant USCCB is overseen, governed, supervised, directed, and/or controlled by Defendant Holy See.
28. The Catholic Church is part of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church; it also is overseen, governed, supervised, directed, and/or controlled by Defendant Holy See. With
Catholicism making up 20.8% of the United States population as of 2018, it is the largest religious denomination in the United States. The United States has the fourth largest Catholic population in the world after Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines, the largest Catholic minority population, and the largest English-speaking Catholic population.
29. Founded in 1966 as the joint National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the
United States Catholic Conference, Defendant USCCB is composed of all active and retired members of the Catholic hierarchy (i.e., diocesan, coadjutor, and auxiliary bishops and the ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter) in the United States and the
Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands. In the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the bishops in the six dioceses have their own episcopal conference, the Puerto Rican Episcopal Conference. The
16 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 20 of 85
bishops in U.S. insular areas in the Pacific Ocean – the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, the Territory of American Samoa, and the Territory of Guam – are members of the
Episcopal Conference of the Pacific. Defendant USCCB adopted its current name in July 2001.
Defendant USCCB’s headquarters are in Washington, D.C.
30. The 1983 Code of Canon Law establishes three levels of church laws and
regulations for the Catholic Church. The first level is universal law, which is enacted by the pope
and operative throughout the world. The second level is national law enacted by Defendant
USCCB. The third level is diocesan law enacted by a diocesan bishop and operative in the bishop’s diocese. Diocesan bishops, however, are prohibited from enacting legislation that conflicts with national law promulgated by Defendant USCCB.
31. Defendant USCCB also oversees, governs, supervises, and directs all dioceses and parishes comprising the Catholic Church in the United States according to the 1983 Code of
Canon Law7, and prior to that, the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Defendant USCCB is empowered by church law to legislate for United States dioceses on many issues and, in fact, the 1983 Code of Canon Law contains many areas specifically left to Defendant USCCB to decide. On an on- going basis, Defendant USCCB studies and votes on issues which can bind all United States dioceses. In certain situations, the ultimate approval of Defendant Holy See is required for such legislation, yet the fact remains that Defendant USCCB has the power to make policy decisions, the power to legislate, and the power and resources to provide information, direction and supervision of dioceses, parishes, and their Clergy. Defendant USCCB officers and
7 The 1983 Code of Canon Law (Latin: Codex Iuris Canonici), also known as the Johanno- Pauline Code, is the "fundamental body of ecclesiastical laws” for the Catholic Church. It is the second and current comprehensive codification of canonical legislation for the Catholic Church. It was promulgated on January 25, 1983 by Pope John Paul II and took effect on November 27, 1983. It replaced the 1917 Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope Benedict XV.
17 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 21 of 85 representatives have frequently represented themselves as acting on behalf of the entire community of the Catholic Church, including Catholic children.
32. The 1983 Code of Canon Law does not circumscribe, but rather, prescribes the legislative function of Defendant USCCB. For example, Canon 455 states that Defendant
USCCB has the power to issue general decrees (laws) in two cases:
1. when the general law (the Code) prescribes it or when the Holy See allows all conferences or particular conferences to issue decrees, and
2. when the Holy See allows a conference to issue a decree upon the request of the conference or by order of the Holy See.
The cases prescribed by the general law consist of certain canons of the Code stating that the application of the law is left to the episcopal conference. Properly speaking, these are called
"executory decrees," which means that they are precise determinations on how to observe laws.
33. In addition to executorial decrees, Defendant USCCB also may enact decrees or laws for its own territory. To do so it must first secure a mandate from or the permission of
Defendant Holy See. Defendant Holy See also may instruct Defendant USCCB to enact legislation for a specific need. When Defendant USCCB seeks permission to enact a decree, the process usually begins with a proposal from a bishop or group of bishops. The proposal is then studied by various USCCB committees and finally placed before the entire USCCB in plenary session. If they vote favorably, the issue is sent to Defendant Holy See for its approval or disapproval. If it approves, Defendant USCCB then moves to enact and enforce the decree.
34. The Code of Canon Law contains 84 other instances where the enactment of laws governing the Catholic Church and its Clergy—referred to as Complementary Norms—is the prerogative of Defendant USCCB. For example, under the Complementary Norms, Defendant
USCCB can (i) require that each diocese have an office for alternative dispute resolution (c.
18 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 22 of 85
1733, S2), (ii) establish the regulations for leasing ecclesiastical property in the United States
(c.1297)8, and (iii) regulate fundraising by Catholic entities (c.1262).9
35. Defendant USCCB also has assumed responsibility for studying numerous issues
impacting the day to day life of Catholics in each diocese in the country. Over the years,
Defendant USCCB has created policies and procedures and conducted studies in a variety of
areas impacting dioceses and their Clergy throughout the United States. Defendant USCCB has
sought to influence U.S. public policy and/or state governments in areas over which it has
authority—including U.S. policy regarding nuclear deterrence; U.S. policy relating to
immigration and illegal aliens/health care matters; practices followed by both Catholic-sponsored
and non-sectarian hospitals; the Right to Life movement; legislation related to abortion and
Hispanic and black ministry movements; various legislation concerning minorities, immigrants,
family life ministries and youth ministries; and various legislation concerning education and
children’s rights (excluding, ironically, the sexual abuse of children).
36. Defendant USCCB also has funded and conducted numerous studies on the
physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychological state of the priesthood in the United States and
is, and has been, cognizant of the various kinds of difficulties facing Catholic Clergy. It has
given large sums of money to the Catholic-sponsored and Catholic-run health care facilities
specifically geared to treating Clergy with emotional, substance, and psycho-sexual problems
(the Paraclete Facilities). Defendant USCCB also has actively studied and published its studies
regarding the life and ministry of Catholic Clergy, including The Catholic Priest in the United
8 Complementary Norm on Leasing Ecclesiastical Property: http://www.usccb.orgy'beliefs- and-teachings/what-webelieve/canon-ladcomplementary-norrns/canon-1297-leasing-of-church- propetv'cfm.
9 Complementary Norm on Fundraising: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what- we-believe/canonlaw/complementary-norms/canon-1262-fundraising-appeals.cfm.
19 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 23 of 85
States: Historical Investigations (1972), Sociological Investigations (1972), and Psychological
Investigations (1972).
37. Defendant USCCB’s study of the life and ministry of Catholic Clergy is carried out through ad hoc committees and standing committees on Pastoral Research and Practices and
Priestly Life and Ministry. The study of Catholic Clergy also impacts on, and is related to, civil law issues, including various civil law regulations and statutes pertaining to child sex abuse, a felony crime in each state and the District of Columbia.
38. Since Defendant USCCB has sought to influence public policy in numerous areas directly related to church matters, and in keeping with Catholic theology and canon law,
Defendant USCCB has a direct interest in the moral issues related to the welfare of children— including, inter alia, the duties to safeguard and protect them from Clergy child sex abuse, report abusive Clergy to law enforcement, maintain transparency regarding abusive Clergy, and compensate Clergy child sex abuse victims—including Plaintiffs and Class Members—for their injuries and harm. And, in fact, throughout the years, Defendant USCCB has maintained several committees pertaining to the welfare of children, including the Domestic Social Policy
Committee, International Policy Committee, and Marriage and Family Life Committee. These committees have published major studies focusing on children and the family, including, without limitation, A Family Perspective in Church and Society, Manual for all Pastoral Leaders (1988),
Putting Children and Families First, a Challenge For Our Church, Nation, and World (1991) (see section on Abuse and Neglect at 9), and a Plan of Pastoral Action for Family Ministry (1978).
39. The Catholic Church has traditionally advocated the obligations of the secular
State towards the individual and common good. It has, as an international and national entity, assumed the right to speak out on various public issues, which it claims are grounded in religious teaching and impact civic culture. On the national level, Defendant USCCB has invoked this
20 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 24 of 85
claim in its efforts to influence public policy in numerous areas, including those directly related
to sexual morality—such as abortion, sterilization, and the distribution of contraceptives. Clergy child sex abuse is a felony crime and an ecclesiastical crime. While Defendant USCCB has taken proactive stances on abortion, sterilization, and the distribution of contraceptives, it, ironically,
has failed and refused to be proactive about safeguarding and protecting children from Clergy
child sex abuse and reporting abusive Clergy to law enforcement.
40. In 2002, Defendant USCCB adopted a policy directive titled the Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People. In 2002, Defendant USCCB also promulgated a
companion document, the Essential Norms, which “constitute particular law for all the
dioceses/eparchies of the United States of America.”10 The Essential Norms mandate the so-
called one-strike policy (Norm 8), the establishment of diocesan review boards (Norm 4), and
victims assistance coordinators (Norm 3). They also set out the procedure for investigating
accusations of the sexual abuse of minors (Norm 6), including by complying with civil laws
(Norm 11). The Essential Norms also require all dioceses to develop a written policy on the
sexual abuse of minors, which must be filed with the USCCB (Norm 2). Catholic Clergy and
dioceses throughout the United States have regularly and repeatedly violated the Charter for the
Protection of Children and Young People and the Essential Norms. By the same token,
Defendant USCCB has regularly, repeatedly, and knowingly failed and refused to enforce the
Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People and the Essential Norms—to the
detriment of Plaintiffs and Class Members—even after commissioning the John Jay College of
10 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People/Essential Norms: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and- youthprotection/loader.cfrnijsessionid:lF83E84FE6BC7003A65BCA5DB2574044.usccb?csMod ule--security/getfile&pageid:59441&CFID=66954833&CFTOKEN=44005553.
21 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 25 of 85
Justice to perform two studies of the nature and scope11 and causes and contexts of the sexual abuse of children by Catholic Clergy.12
41. Defendant USCCB also has broad influence in media communications,
controlling a national news service, which is available to religious and secular newspapers
throughout the United States, and radio and cable television channels. Defendant USCCB also
controls a closed-circuit television network and has a media/public relations staff. Defendant
USCCB has regularly used these media outlets to influence public policy, opinion, and practice
in areas in which the Catholic Church claims to have competence, including matters related to
sexual morality. Yet, ironically, Defendant USCCB has never used its media power to address
Clergy child sexual abuse, identify the abusive Clergy, or warn the faithful or the public at large
about this rampant problem in the Catholic Church and the abusive Clergy committing these
heinous acts on minor children.
42. Laws and regulations enacted by Defendant USCCB governing, supervising, and
directing the Catholic Church must be observed by all dioceses in the United States. By way of
example, the Program of Priestly Formation, Fifth Edition,13 a document developed by
Defendant USCCB, must be observed in all seminaries in the United States whether diocesan or
inter-diocesan and, in fact, Defendant USCCB organizes regular visitations to seminaries across
the United States to make sure they are complying with its terms.
11 Nature and Scope: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth- protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and- Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf.
12 Causes and Contexts: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth- protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in- the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf.
13 Program for Priestly Formation: http://www.usccb.org/upload/program-priestly- forrnation-fifth-edition.pdf.
22 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 26 of 85
43. For several decades, each diocese in the United States has secured its federal tax-
exempt status by means of a group exemption granted by the Internal Revenue Service to
Defendant USCCB.14 IRS Publication 4573 states that to qualify for a group tax exemption, the
central organization and its subordinates must have a defined relationship. The IRS
Determination Letter, in fact, specifies that United States dioceses and other related organizations listed in the Official Catholic Directory are subordinate organizations to Defendant
USCCB, the central organization.
44. Finally, and in addition to its general legislative and oversight functions,
Defendant USCCB also collects donations from the faithful in dioceses throughout the United
States. In fact, Defendant USCCB requires “all dioceses throughout the country support an important objective through special annual parish appeals and collections.” Currently these collections are the Catholic Home Missions Appeal, the Catholic Communication Campaign, the
Catholic Campaign for Human Development, the Collection for the Church in Latin America, the Collection for Aid to the Church in Central and Eastern Europe, the Retirement Fund for
Religious Appeal, the Catholic Relief Services Collection, and Catholic University of America
Collection.”15 Every diocese in the United States is required to collect money from parishioners for these causes. While local dioceses may retain a portion of the funds collected, the vast
majority of the funds are remitted to Defendant USCCB according to its schedules, rules, and
regulations. These collections are forwarded to Defendant USCCB by local diocese employees
via a special USCCB web portal (http://www.nationalcollections.orgl). In some cases, these
14 2018 IRS Determination Letter: http://usccb.org/about/general-counsel/upload/2018-IRS- Deterrnination-Letter'-redacted.odf.
15 One Church, One Mission: Guidelines for National Collections: http://www.usccb.org/about/nationalcollections/collection-adrninistration/upload/one-chulclr- one-mission-guidelines-national-collections.pdf.
23 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 27 of 85
employees’ only job is to collect and forward the funds for Defendant USCCB's national collections.16
45. Thus, Defendant USCCB has vast resources, receives substantial funding to
operate its bureaucracy from individual lay Catholics, Catholic organizations, individual
dioceses, and its Clergy, and maintains various offices or representatives in individual dioceses.
Defendant USCCB’s practices and procedures clearly demonstrate that it, in fact, acts as a
governing body by passing legislation, establishing policy, supervising the implementation of its
laws, regulations and policies, and overseeing, governing, and directing all dioceses, parishes,
and Clergy comprising the Catholic Church (including their parishioners). As such, Defendant
USCCB had (and continues to have) the duty to exercise due care to protect the Catholic community from known danger—including Clergy child sex abuse.
46. Defendant USCCB’s decisions and acts—including those pertaining to Clergy child sex abuse—in turn, must (and do) receive the recognitio, or approval of the Roman dicasteries, which are subject to the immediate and absolute authority of Defendant Holy See.
See, e.g., footnote 17, infra. Defendant USCCB, a corporation organized under the laws of the
District of Columbia, already has been served with Summons in this matter.
Defendant Holy See
47. Defendant Holy See, in its Capacity as a Foreign State (State of the Vatican City),
and in its Capacity as an Unincorporated Association and Head of an International Religious
Organization (Holy See) is the ecclesiastical, governmental, and administrative ruler of the
Roman Catholic Church worldwide, including Defendant USCCB and the Catholic Church in the
United States. Defendant Holy See oversees, governs, supervises, and directs Defendant
16 Retirement Fund for Religious in Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis: http://thecatholicspirit.corn/featured/through-retirement-furrd-catholics-show-gratitude-for- religious-men-andwomen/.
24 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 28 of 85
USCCB,17 all dioceses and parishes comprising the Catholic Church in the United States, and its
Clergy by and through Defendant USCCB. Defendant Holy See also is the sovereign entity ruling Vatican City.
48. The pope is the head of state and directs the Roman Curia, a collection of administrative units governing and directing different ecclesial functions, such as religious life, evangelization, church doctrine, and church law. Curial officials are cardinals, bishops, and priests directly employed at the Vatican in the different administrative units.
49. Defendant Holy See comprises the authority, jurisdiction, and sovereignty vested in the pope and his delegated advisors to direct the activities of the worldwide Roman Catholic
Church, including Defendant USCCB and the Catholic Church in the United States. Defendant
Holy See has absolute and unqualified power and control over the Catholic Church, including absolute and unqualified power and control over every Catholic Church archdiocese, diocese, school, Clergy, and other of Defendants’ personnel, members, employees, agents, and representatives. Defendant Holy See exercises certain powers and engages in certain activities peculiar to sovereigns. Defendant Holy See also exercises powers, and engages in activities, including commercial activities, that are not peculiar to sovereigns, but rather, are exercised and engaged in by private actors, including unincorporated associations and headquarters of international religious organizations.
50. Defendant Holy See, which occupies its own sovereign territory located within the city of Rome, Italy, is a unique entity. It enters into treaties and conventions with other
17 For example, on November 11, 2018, Defendant Holy See issued an eleventh-hour directive to Defendant USCCB to postpone its efforts to hold bishops more responsible in Clergy child sex abuse cases, which Defendant USCCB was set to consider at its annual meeting in November 2018. See, e.g., Vatican tells U.S. bishops not to vote on proposals to tackle sexual abuse, spurns outside investigations, https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2018/11/12/ vatican-asks-us-bishops-not-vote-sexual-abuse-proposals-they-planned/?utm_term= .9d54738367e4 (last visited March 6, 2019).
25 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 29 of 85
foreign states, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, maintains diplomatic relations with 176 sovereign states, including the
United States, and has permanent observer status in the United Nations. At the same time, and wholly distinct and separate from its role and activities as a sovereign, it is an unincorporated association and head of the worldwide Roman Catholic Church and its Clergy.
51. Defendant Holy See engages in commercial activity in the District of Columbia, throughout the United States, and worldwide. Defendant Holy See buys and sells real and personal property, and purchases and supplies goods and services. Defendant Holy See is supported by the contributions of money (including tithes), real property, and personal property by
Catholic Church parishioners, including those located within the District of Columbia, which are received as part of its regular course of commercial conduct in the United States. In exchange,
Defendant Holy See, directs, supervises, supports, promotes, engages, and provides religious and pastoral directives and guidance, education, and counseling services to the worldwide Roman
Catholic Church, including the Catholic Church, directly and/or through the Clergy, its employees, and its agents and representatives (including, without limitation, Defendant USCCB).
Defendant USCCB, a representative and agent of Defendant Holy See that it supervises and directs in a manner consistent with the command control doctrine, is headquartered in the
District of Columbia.
52. Defendant Holy See creates, organizes, divides, and realigns dioceses, archdioceses and ecclesiastical provinces throughout the worldwide Roman Catholic Church, including the Catholic Church in the United States. It also names bishops to lead the dioceses and transfers them between different dioceses or religious offices within the Holy See. Defendant
Holy See dictates the minimum requirements for ordination as a priest or bishop, and gives final approval to the creation, division, and suppression of provinces of religious orders.
26 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 30 of 85
53. Defendant Holy See directs and mandates the Clergy’s morals and standards of
conduct. Defendant Holy See creates, appoints, assigns, reassigns, directs, supervises, and retires
all Clergy. It also approves the elections of the heads of Catholic religious orders and, through its agents and representatives (including, without limitation, Defendant USCCB), Defendant Holy
See exercises its power to directly assign, reassign, and remove Clergy from their positions. All
Clergy vow to respect and obey Defendant Holy See. For example, when a priest is ordained, he stands before his consecrators and the congregation and pledges his obedience and loyalty to the supreme Roman Catholic pontiff, Defendant Holy See.
54. Defendant Holy See is responsible for the work and discipline of the Clergy. As such, Defendant Holy See, among other things, requires bishops to regularly file reports regarding the status of, and any problems with, the Clergy. Defendant Holy See promulgates and enforces the Catholic Church internal laws and regulations regarding the education, training,
standards of conduct, and discipline of the Clergy and all others who serve in the internal
governance, administrative, judicial, educational, and pastoral operations of the worldwide
Roman Catholic Church, including the Catholic Church in the United States.
55. No Clergy may be removed from service or a position of leadership without the approval of Defendant Holy See, nor may any Clergy remain in service or a position of leadership over the objection of Defendant Holy See. Defendant Holy See is directly and absolutely responsible for removing Catholic Clergy from service and/or making them ineligible for positions of leadership in the various divisions and offices of the worldwide Roman Catholic
Church, including the Catholic Church in the United States, by issuing instructions, mandates, and dictates in and/or directed to the United States by and through Defendant USCCB, its agent and representative in the United States. Defendant Holy See has the ultimate authority to approve or disapprove the settlement of legal claims against the Clergy for child rape and sexual abuse.
27 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 31 of 85
56. Defendant Holy See is not a party to any international service of process treaty,
and has refused Plaintiffs’ attempt at service via 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3). Accordingly, Defendant
Holy See may be served with process via 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(4).
FACTS
I. A brief history of Clergy child sex abuse in the Catholic Church in the United States.
57. Cases of child rape and sexual abuse by Catholic Clergy in the 20th and 21st centuries are widespread and have led to numerous allegations, investigations, trials, and convictions, as well as revelations about decades of attempts by Defendants to cover up reported incidents. The abused children include boys and girls, some as young as 3 years old, with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14. Many cases involve allegations against Clergy for decades of abuse; such allegations were frequently made by adults or older youth years after the abuse occurred. Cases also have also been brought against members of the Catholic Church hierarchy—including Defendants—for covering up sex abuse allegations and moving abusive
Clergy from parish to parish where the abuse continued.
58. Clergy child sex abuse in the Catholic Church has been going on for centuries.
For example, in 306 A.D., the Council of Elvira in Spain passed the first formal legislation
condemning Clergy child sex abuse, including the sexual abuse of boys.
59. In the 11th century, Father Peter Damien wrote the Book of Gomorrah, which
called for the punishment of Clergy who sexually molested and abused children, particularly
boys. A copy of the book was presented to Defendant Holy See.
60. Defendant Holy See’s knowledge of Clergy child sex abuse and its duty to
monitor the Clergy and report sexual abuse first came into focus in the early 20th century when,
in 1917, the Curia completed a decade-long codification of church law into the 1917 Code of
Canon Law. Pope Paul VI later updated the canon to the new 1983 Code. The 1917 Code made
28 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 32 of 85
“adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy, pandering, [and] incest” ecclesial crimes. The 1917
Code specifically made it a crime for Clergy to have sexual relations or relationships with
children under the age of sixteen. It also mandated, without reservation, the suspension of guilty
clerics and removal from any office, and “in more serious cases,” deposition. The 1983 Code
goes even further, expressly forbidding Clergy child sex abuse and directing that “civil laws to
which the law of the Church yields are to be observed in canon law with the same effects,”
which requires both laity and clergy to report civil crimes to civil authorities as a matter of canon
law. These provisions alone demonstrate that Defendant Holy See was well-aware of the
centuries-old practice of Clergy child rape and sexual abuse—yet did nothing to stop it.
61. In the late 1940s, American Father Gerald Fitzgerald founded the Congregation
of the Servants of the Paraclete, a religious order that treats Catholic Clergy struggling with
personal difficulties, such as substance abuse and sexual misconduct. In a series of letters and
reports to high-ranking Catholic leaders starting in the 1950s, Fitzgerald warned of substantial
problems with pedophile priests. He wrote, for example, “[sexual abuse] offenders were unlikely
to change and should not be returned to ministry.” He discussed the problem with Pope Paul VI
(1963 – 1978) and “in correspondence with several bishops.”
62. In March 1962, Defendant Holy See privately circulated the Crimen
sollicitationis, a document containing a set of procedural norms for dealing with the solicitation of sex in confession, Clergy sex with minors, homosexual relations, and bestiality. This document, which is an official legislative text, issued by the Congregation of the Holy Office
and specifically approved by Pope John XXIII, imposed the highest level of secrecy on
handling Clergy child sex abuse matters and on the document itself. It reflects Defendant
Holy See’s longstanding policies and directives regarding Clergy child sex abuse. This secret
document was first discovered and made public in July 2003 by news media in the United States
29 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 33 of 85
and throughout the world. It requires bishops in the United States, including the District of
Columbia, not to report Clergy child sex abuse to criminal or civil authorities even though the failure and refusal to do so is a criminal offense throughout the United States. At all relevant times, and as part of both its course of commercial conduct and particular commercial transactions and acts in the United States, Defendant Holy See directed (and continues to direct) bishops in the United States (i.e., Defendant USCCB) to conceal from its parishioners and the general public its Clergy’s sexual abuse of children in order to avoid public scandal, perpetuate its “Christian” public image, and ensure the continued receipt of funds from its parishioners and other financial contributors. Defendant USCCB has carried out (and continues to carry out)
Defendant Holy See’s directives—all in furtherance of Defendants’ commercial activities in the
United States, including the District of Columbia.
63. Although abusive Clergy were sent to mental health facilities, such as those operated by the Servants of the Paraclete since the 1950s, there was scant public discussion of the problem until the mid-1960s; the issue was swept under the rug. Even then, most of the discussion was secretly conducted by and between the Catholic Church hierarchy—including
Defendants. A public discussion of the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic Clergy finally took place at a National Association for Pastoral Renewal meeting held at the University of Notre
Dame in 1967. All Defendant USCCB member-bishops were invited.
64. Thereafter, various local and regional discussions of the problem were held by
Defendant USCCB member-bishops. However, it was not until the 1980s that discussion of
Clergy child sex abuse began to be covered as a phenomenon in the U.S. news media. According to the Catholic News Service, public awareness of Clergy child sex abuse in the United States began in the late 1970s and the 1980s as an outgrowth of the growing awareness of the overall physical abuse of children in society.
30 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 34 of 85
65. In September 1983, the National Catholic Reporter published an article on the
topic. The subject gained wider national notoriety in October 1985 when Louisiana priest Gilbert
Gauthe pleaded guilty to eleven counts of molesting boys. After the coverage of Gauthe’s crimes
subsided, the issue faded to the fringes of public attention until the mid-1990s, when it was again
brought to national attention after numerous books on the topic were published.
66. By the 1990s, Clergy child sex abuse cases began receiving significant media and
public attention—especially in Canada, the United States, Australia, and Ireland. A critical
investigation by The Boston Globe in 2002 led to widespread media coverage of the issue in the
United States, later dramatized in the motion picture Spotlight. Since then, widespread Clergy
child sex abuse has been exposed in Europe, Australia, and Chile.
67. From 2001 to 2010, Defendant Holy See considered Clergy child sex abuse allegations involving about 3,000 priests dating back fifty years, reflecting worldwide patterns of long-term abuse and the Catholic Church hierarchy’s pattern of regularly covering up such abuse. Diocesan officials and academics knowledgeable about the Catholic Church know that
Clergy child sex abuse is generally not discussed, and thus, is difficult to measure.
68. After the 2002 revelation by The Boston Globe that Clergy child sex abuse was widespread in the Catholic Church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, The Dallas Morning News conducted a year-long investigation. It reported in 2004 that even after these revelations and public outcry, the Catholic Church had moved allegedly abusive priests out of the countries where they had been accused, only to re-assign them to “settings that bring them into contact with children, despite church claims to the contrary.” The investigation found that nearly half of
200 cases “involved clergy who tried to elude law enforcement.”
69. In a 2001 apology, Pope John Paul II called Clergy child sex abuse “a profound contradiction of the teaching and witness of Jesus Christ.” Pope Benedict XVI apologized, met
31 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 35 of 85 with victims, and spoke of his “shame” at the evil of abuse, calling for perpetrators to be brought to justice, and denouncing mishandling by church authorities.
70. In 2003, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of the Catholic Archdiocese of
Milwaukee authorized payments of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests to convince them to leave the priesthood.
71. According to a 2004 research study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice for Defendant USCCB (the “Report”), 4,392 Catholic priests and deacons in active ministry between 1950 and 2002 have been plausibly accused (neither withdrawn nor disproven) of under-age sexual abuse by 10,667 individuals. Estimating the number of priests and deacons active in the same period at 110,000, the Report concluded that approximately 4% have faced such allegations. The Report noted that “[i]t is impossible to determine from our surveys what percent of all actual cases of abuse that occurred between 1950 and 2002 have been reported to the Church and are therefore in our dataset.” The Report also found that:
• Approximately 81% of the victims were male.
• Female victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests tended to be younger than the males. Data showed that the number and proportion of sexual misconduct directed at girls under 8 years old was higher than that directed at boys of the same age.
• 22.6% of the victims were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.
• A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests.
• 9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
• In approximately 20% of the allegations, the allegedly abusive Clergy were deceased or inactive at the time the allegation was first made, and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
• In 38.4% of the allegations, the abuse was alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year, but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.
32 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 36 of 85
The 4,392 accused priests amounted to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392 priests, approximately:
• 56% had one reported allegation against them; 27% had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14% had four to nine allegations against them; and 3% (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27% of the allegations.
• The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. The allegations were considered credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests.
• 50% of the priests were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.
• Almost 70% of the allegedly abusive priests were ordained before 1970.
• Fewer than 7% were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19% had alcohol or substance abuse problems, 9% were reported to have used drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.
72. The Report also found that “[l]ike in the general population, child sex abuse in the
Catholic Church appears to be committed by men close to the children they allegedly abuse.”
According to the study, “many (abusers) appear to use grooming tactics to entice children into complying with the abuse, and the abuse occurs in the home of the alleged abuser or victim.”
The Report characterized these enticements as actions such as buying the minor gifts, letting the victim drive a car, and taking youths to sporting events. The most frequent context for abuse was a social event and many abusive Clergy socialized with the victims’ families. Abuses occurred in a variety of places with the most common being Clergy residences.
73. Many of the reported acts of Clergy child sex abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse. There were allegations of forced acts of oral sex and intercourse. Detailed information on the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations.
Approximately 27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim;
25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.
33 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 37 of 85
74. The Report further noted that although there were reported acts of Clergy child
sex abuse in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased markedly in the 1960s and
1970s. There was, for example, a more than six-fold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged 11 to 17 between the 1950s and the 1970s. Contributing factors to Clergy sex abuse were “poor screening and training of priests.”
75. The Report also noted the Catholic Church hierarchy’s failure to grasp the seriousness of the problem, overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal, use of unqualified treatment centers for Clergy removed for rehabilitation, a misguided willingness by bishops to forgive sexual misconduct as a moral failing and not treat it a crime, allowance of recidivism upon reassignment of abusing priests, and insufficient accountability of the hierarchy for inaction. The Report has since been updated through 2010.
76. The Augustin Cardinal Bea, S.J., who specializes in abuse counseling and is considered an expert on clerical abuse, stated that “approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor.” In fact, the United States has the highest number of reported Clergy child sex abuse cases.
77. As recently as 2011, Father Curtis Wehmeyer was allowed to work as a priest in
Minnesota despite many people reporting concern about his sexual compulsion and suspicious behavior with boys. Father Wehmeyer was employed as a priest without proper background checks. He was later convicted of sexually abusing two boys. After his arrest, numerous complaints were lodged that the responsible Clergy were more concerned with how to spin the story in a favorable light than in helping victims.
78. On May 13, 2017, Pope Francis acknowledged that the Vatican had a 2,000-case backlog of Clergy child sex abuse cases.
34 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 38 of 85
79. Pope Francis began 2018 by accusing victims of fabricating allegations, but by
April apologized for his “tragic error,” and by August expressed “shame and sorrow” for the tragic history of Clergy sexual abuse of children, but the situation has not substantively changed.
80. In July 2018, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick resigned from the College of
Cardinals (the first Cardinal to do so since 1927), following allegations of child sex abuse and
attempted homosexual rape at a seaside villa.
81. In August 2018, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, a former senior Vatican official and diplomat, claimed the pope knew as early as 2013 about allegations that the former archbishop of Washington, ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, had been sexually active with seminarians and that Pope Benedict XVI had privately disciplined him over the charges.
Archbishop Viganò said that Pope Francis had ignored then-Cardinal McCarrick’s record and rehabilitated him as a powerful figure in the Catholic Church.
82. In August 2018, a Pennsylvania grand jury issued a searing report that Defendant
USCCB member-bishops and other leaders of the Catholic Church in Pennsylvania covered up child sexual abuse by more than 300 priests against over 1000 victims over a period of 70 years, persuading victims not to report the abuse and law enforcement not to investigate it. Since then, attorneys general in at least a dozen states have opened investigations into whether their local dioceses engaged in cover-ups of Clergy child sex abuse.
83. On October 9, 2018, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sent a sweeping request to Defendant USCCB that every diocese in the United States preserve all documents related to the handling of Clergy child sex abuse. The DOJ also asked Defendant
USCCB to retain its files on a broad array of internal matters, including Clergy child sex abuse investigations and the transfer of priests across state or international borders, or to treatment centers. The DOJ’s request includes documents contained in “secret archives” —
35 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 39 of 85 the confidential files kept by each diocese. On October 23, 2018, Defendant USCCB sent the
DOJ letter to all United States dioceses.
84. On October 12, 2018, Pope Francis accepted the resignation of Cardinal Donald
Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., for his handling of Clergy child sex abuse. Cardinal
Wuerl, who was the bishop of Pittsburgh for 18 years before coming to Washington, D.C., in
2006, is accused by Catholics for not doing enough to root out Clergy child sex abuse. In a highly unusual step, as he accepted the resignation of Cardinal Wuerl, the pope also wrote a letter praising Cardinal Wuerl’s “nobility” in choosing to step down rather than defend his record. The pope’s letter further angered critics of the Catholic Church’s response to Clergy child sex abuse say the pontiff fails to appreciate the gravity of the crisis. Terence McKiernan of
BishopAccountability.org, an organization that tracks Clergy child sex abuse cases, said the letter “sends a clear message that for Pope Francis, Cardinal Wuerl is more important than the children he put in harm’s way.”
85. On November 12, 2018, at its annual meeting in Baltimore, Maryland, Defendant
USCCB was prepared to vote on reforms addressing Clergy child sex abuse. At the eleventh hour, however, Defendant Holy See ordered Defendant USCCB not to take any action on the proposed reforms, but rather, wait until after a global summit on the issue planned for February
2019. Defendant USCCB followed Defendant Holy See’s directive and did not vote on the two action items—thereby kicking the can down the road again.
86. According to a November 12, 2018 article in the Washington Post, in a press conference, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the president of Defendant USCCB, emphasized the control Defendant Holy See possesses over Defendant USCCB: “We are Roman Catholic bishops, in communion with our Holy Father in Rome. And he has people around him who are what we call congregations or offices, and we’re responsible to them, in that communion of
36 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 40 of 85
faith.” Bishop Christopher Coyne, head of Defendant USCCB’s communications committee,
reiterated the point: “We in the U.S. can have a limited view of the worldwide church ... It would
be difficult if we came up with [different] policies and procedures.”
87. According to the same article in the Washington Post, at Defendant USCCB’s
annual meeting, Defendant Holy See’s Ambassador to the United States, Archbishop Christophe
Pierre, warned the bishops not to rely on investigations of Clergy child sex abuse by lay
commissions or law enforcement, effectively instructing the bishops to ignore evidence of abuse
unless it comes from the Church itself. He quoted a French author who said that “whoever
pretends to reform the church with the same means to reform temporal society” will “fail.”
88. At the February 2019 summit on sexual abuse in Rome, Italy, German Cardinal
Reinhardt Marx admitted that Defendant Holy See destroyed files to prevent the documentation
of decades of Clergy child sex abuse, telling the prelates attending the summit that such
maladministration led “in no small measure” to more children being harmed. According to the
National Catholic Reporter, Cardinal Marx “said the church’s administration had left victims’
rights ‘trampled underfoot’ and ‘made it impossible’ for the worldwide institution to fulfill its
mission. ‘Files that could have documented the terrible deeds and named those responsible were
destroyed, or not even created,’ said Marx, beginning a list of a number of practices that
survivors have documented for years but church officials have long kept under secret.” Joshua J.
McElwee, Cardinal admits to Vatican summit that Catholic Church destroyed abuse files,
National Catholic Reporter (Feb. 23, 2019), available at https://www.ncronline.org/news/
accountability/cardinal-admits-vatican-summit-catholic-church-destroyed-abuse-files.
89. Despite the admission that Defendant Holy See’s file destruction caused even more Clergy child sex abuse, the February 2019 Rome summit produced no concrete changes to the Catholic Church’s governance that would prevent such abuse going forward. In other words,
37 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 41 of 85 in November 2018, Defendant Holy See ordered Defendant USCCB not to adopt concrete measures to prevent Clergy child sex abuse so that the issue could be addressed at the February
2019 summit in Rome, yet the Rome summit also failed to adopt concrete measures to prevent such abuse. At the end of the summit, Pope Francis, not surprisingly, downplayed and attempted to explain away the significance of Defendants’ and the Catholic Church’s problem, stating,
“Our work has made us realize once again that the gravity of the scourge of the sexual abuse of minors is, and historically has been, a widespread phenomenon in all cultures and societies,” and pointing out that most abuse takes place in the home. https://press.vatican.va/content/ salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/02/24/190224c.html.
90. A few days before the Rome summit, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the former
Archbishop of Newark and the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., was laicized for sexual crimes against adults and minors stretching back nearly fifty years. Cardinal McCarrick’s behavior had long been known within the Catholic Church—including by Defendants—as two New Jersey dioceses allegedly settled with his victims. One of his victims, Reverend Boniface Ramsey, reported Cardinal McCarrick’s conduct to the Archbishop of Louisville in 1993 and to the apostolic nuncio in Washington, D.C. in a 2000 letter. Elizabeth Bruenig, He wanted to be a priest. He says Archbishop McCarrick used that to abuse him., Washington Post (Sept. 12,
2018). Yet, Cardinal McCarrick faced no consequences for his wrongful actions before he reached the customary retirement age of 75 in 2006. Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has accused Pope Francis and several senior Catholic Church officials of knowing about—and failing to act on—Cardinal McCarrick’s alleged misconduct.
91. About two days after the February 2019 Rome summit, Cardinal George Pell of
Australia was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two choirboys in the 1990s. After the sentence was announced, Defendant Holy See announced it would begin its own
38 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 42 of 85
investigation into Cardinal Pell. Incredibly, this means that there was some period of time during
which Cardinal Pell was charged with a crime that Defendant Holy See did not investigate even though Cardinal Pell was Prefect of the Secretariat for the Economy, which put him in charge of
Defendant Holy See’s finances, reporting directly to the pope.
II. Defendants have repeatedly failed and refused to properly address Clergy child sex abuse and compensate the victims.
92. Historically, Defendants have addressed Clergy child sex abuse as an internal
matter. Abusive Clergy were sanctioned under canon law (if at all) and sometimes received
treatment from specialized Catholic service agencies, but relatively few of them were reported to
civil authorities. Abusive Clergy have been routinely moved from parish to parish where they
still had personal contact with children, rather than seeking to permanently remove them from
the priesthood. Clergy child sex abuse has been institutionalized, routinized, and tolerated by the
Catholic Church hierarchy, including Defendants, for decades to the point that it has operated as
a criminal syndicate. Defendants are guilty of a grave moral failure for allowing the massive and
rampant Clergy child sex abuse. In fact, in response to Defendants’ failure to report Clergy child
sex abuse to law enforcement, lawmakers in multiple states have moved to change their laws to
make reporting of abuse to law enforcement compulsory.
93. Defendant Holy See has been especially slow to react. For example, in April
2003, the Pontifical Academy for Life organized a three-day conference, entitled “Abuse of
Children and Young People by Catholic Priests and Religious,” where eight non-Catholic
psychiatric experts spoke nearly all Vatican dicasteries’ representatives. The panel of experts
identified the following factors contributing to the sexual abuse problem:
• Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem. • Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal. • Use of unqualified treatment centers. • Misguided willingness to forgive. • Insufficient accountability.
39 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 43 of 85
Yet Defendant Holy See took no affirmative action to address the issue.
94. Thereafter, in July 2010, Defendant Holy See issued a document doubling the length of time after a victim’s 18th birthday that abusive Clergy can be tried in a church court and streamlining the processes for removing pedophile Clergy. However, the new rules are less strict than those already in place in the United States and do not clarify that pedophilia is a civil offense. Again, no decisive action to protect children from pedophile Clergy.
95. In May 2011, Defendant Holy See published new guidelines dealing with Clergy child sex abuse cases. The guidelines instruct Defendant USCCB member-bishops and heads of
Catholic religious orders worldwide to develop “clear and coordinated” procedures for dealing with sexual abuse allegations, cooperate with the police, and respect the relevant local laws in investigating and reporting allegations of Clergy child sex abuse to civil authorities (although the guidelines do not make such reporting mandatory). The guidelines, however, are perfunctory and insufficient; they do not have the status of church law and do not provide any specific enforcement mechanisms.
96. While Defendants claim to have addressed the issue, the truth is that as of at least
2006, there were approximately 5,000 abusive Clergy in the United States, only 150 of whom had been successfully prosecuted. Defendants and other Church leaders who enabled Clergy child sex abuse were too frequently careless about their own accountability and the accountability of perpetrators. Some critics of the Catholic Church, such as Patrick Wall, attribute this to Defendants’ lack of cooperation. In California, for example, the archdiocese sought to block the disclosure of confidential counseling records on two priests, arguing that such action would violate their First Amendment right on religious protection.
97. In September 2010, Pope Benedict XVI lamented that the Catholic Church had not been vigilant enough or quick enough in responding to the problem of Clergy child sex
40 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 44 of 85
abuse. After Pope Benedict’s resignation in 2013, he was criticized by Survivors Network of
those Abused by Priests (SNAP) for allegedly protecting the Church’s reputation “over the safety
of children.” Representatives from the Center for Constitutional Rights (at the time engaged in
an International Criminal Court case against Pope Benedict on behalf of SNAP), alleged that
Pope Benedict had been directly involved in covering up some of the crimes.
98. Defendants have historically failed to act quickly and decisively remove, treat,
laicize, and report Clergy accused of sexual misconduct. Cardinal Roger Mahony of the
Archdiocese of Los Angeles, said: “We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this
problem and the way it’s dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago,
people didn’t realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry
directly and fully, they were moved.”
99. One early opponent of the treatment of sexually abusive priests was Father Gerald
Fitzgerald, the founder of The Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete. Although Father
Fitzgerald started the Servants of the Paraclete to assist Clergy struggling with alcohol and
substance abuse problems, he soon began counseling Clergy who had sexually abused minors.
Initially, Father Fitzgerald attempted to treat such Clergy using the same spiritual methods he
used with his other patients. But as he grew convinced of the futility of treating sexually abusive
Clergy, Father Fitzgerald came to vehemently oppose the return of sexual abusers to their duties.
He wrote regularly to Defendants and their representatives about his opinion that many Clergy
child sex abusers could not be cured and should be laicizied immediately. But Defendants took
no action.
100. Defendants also have historically operated under a veil of secrecy regarding
Clergy child sex abusers. As reported by The Boston Globe, several Defendant USCCB member-
bishops have facilitated compensation payments to victims on condition that their allegations
41 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 45 of 85
remain secret. According to The Boston Globe, the Archdiocese of Boston secretly settled Clergy
child sex abuse claims against at least 70 Clergy from 1992 to 2002. This practice is consistent with the Catholic Church’s worldwide game plan to cover up Clergy child sex abuse. For example, in November 2009, the Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse reported:
The Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.
101. In April 2010, a lawsuit was filed in Milwaukee federal court by an anonymous
“John Doe 16” against Defendant Holy See and Pope Benedict XVI. The plaintiff accused the pope and others of covering up Clergy child sex abuse cases to avoid scandal to the detriment of the concerned children. In February 2011, two German lawyers initiated charges against Pope
Benedict XVI at the International Criminal Court, alleging the Pope (aka Joseph Ratzinger), as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, covered up Clergy child sex abuse to protect the perpetrators.
102. Internal division within the Catholic Church over this issue finally became public.
A Vatican spokesman stated “[w]hen individual institutions of national churches are implicated, that does not regard the competence of the Holy See. ... The competence of the Holy See is at the level of the Holy See.” But citing canons 331 and 333 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, James
Carroll of The Boston Globe asserted that “[o]n the question of how far papal authority extends, the canon law of the Catholic Church could not be clearer,” and the Holy See’s denial of competency contravenes canon law. Canon 331 states that “The vicar of Christ ... possesses full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely,” and canon 333 states that “... by virtue of his office, the Roman pontiff not only
42 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 46 of 85
possesses power over the universal church, but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power over
all particular churches and groups of them.”
103. Silvano Tomasi, Defendant Holy See’s ambassador to the U.N. at the time, stated—quite incredibly—that the Vatican is not responsible for abusive Clergy because “Clergy
are citizens of their own states, and they fall under the jurisdiction of their own country.” But a
United Nations report18 disagreed, stating that since Clergy are “bound by obedience to the pope” under canon law, Defendant Holy See, in fact, is accountable. The report also urged the
Vatican to insist that the police be involved in all Clergy child sex abuse reports and end the
“code of silence” leading to whistleblowers being “ostracized, demoted and fired.”
104. Placing cases under the competence of Defendant Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith also makes the process more secretive and lengthens the time required to address Clergy child sex abuse allegations. For example, in his biography of Pope John Paul
18 In early 2014, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child issued a report asserting that the Pope and the Catholic Church have worked hard to protect their reputations, rather than protect children. The Committee called for the immediate removal of all known or suspected Clergy child molesters, opening up the archives on abusers and bishops who covered up such abuse, and instances of abuse reported to law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution. The Committee issued the following statement:
The committee is gravely concerned that the Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by, and the impunity of, the perpetrators.
Due to a code of silence imposed on all members of the clergy under penalty of excommunication, cases of child sexual abuse have hardly ever been reported to the law enforcement authorities in the countries where such crimes occurred.
The Committee also enumerated several major findings, including that pedophile Clergy were sent to new parishes or other countries without police being informed, the Vatican never insisted on bishops reporting child sexual abuse to police, and known abusers still have access to children.
43 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 47 of 85
II, David Yallop asserts that the backlog of referrals to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith for action against abusive Clergy is so large that it takes 18 months to merely get a reply.
105. Vatican officials themselves have expressed concern that the Catholic Church’s
insistence on confidentiality in its treatment of Clergy child sex abuse cases effectively operates
as a ban on reporting serious accusations to civil and criminal authorities. Early in 2010,
Cardinal Claudio Hummes, the head of the Congregation for Clergy, finally stated that instances
of Clergy child sex abuse were “criminal facts,” as well as serious sins, requiring co-operation with the civil justice system. But nothing substantively happened to address the issue. Italian academic Lucetta Scaraffia described the Catholic Church’s conspiracy to hide Clergy child sex abuse as omerta, the Mafia code of silence, stating: “We can hypothesize that a greater female presence, not at a subordinate level, would have been able to rip the veil of masculine secrecy that in the past often covered the denunciation of these misdeeds with silence.”
106. Moreover, the 1962 Crimen sollicitationis issued by Defendant Holy See’s Holy
Office (now called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) codified the procedures to be followed in cases of Clergy who used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents; to wit, keep all allegations of sexual abuse secret. This document alone demonstrates
Defendants’ systematic conspiracy to condone and conceal such crimes.
107. In 2013, a group calling itself Catholic Whistleblowers launched a public campaign to encourage improvement in implementing zero-tolerance policies on Clergy child sex abuse. The group said that “vigilance is necessary because some bishops are violating the ... policies, and abusive clergy (who now number 6,275, according to the bishops’ count of those accusations that they deem credible) still have access to children.” According to abuse victim,
Mary Dispenza:
It is easy to think that when we talk about the crisis of child rape and abuse that we are talking about the past – and the Catholic Church would have us believe
44 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 48 of 85
that this most tragic era in church history is over. It is not. It lives on today. Pedophiles are still in the priesthood. Coverups of their crimes are happening now, and bishops in many cases are continuing to refuse to turn information over to the criminal justice system. Cases are stalled and cannot go forward because the church has such power to stop them. Children are still being harmed and victims cannot heal.
“Opinion: Pope Francis must finally root out child abuse,” CNN.com (Feb. 6, 2014).
108. While Defendants claim to have properly addressed Clergy child sex abuse, it’s
only lip service at best. In truth, they have hardened their defenses, allowed the abuse to
continue, systematically and consistently covered it up, refused to address the issue,
marginalized the victims, refused to compensate the victims—including Plaintiffs and Class
Members—and refused to report such abuse and the abusing Clergy to the proper authorities—
all in the name of shielding Defendants and the Catholic Church from scandal and protecting
their commercial activities and financial support. Yet thousands of victims across the United
States continue to report Clergy child sex abuse.
109. In short, Defendants have known about the Clergy child sex abuse rampant in the
Catholic Church for decades yet done nothing to stop it. In fact, the opposite has occurred.
Defendants continue to marginalize Clergy sex abuse victims and the issue at large while abusive
Clergy stay on the job and go unpunished and, most important, children in the United States—
and worldwide—Catholic Church continue to be at risk for Clergy sex abuse.
110. Clergy child sex abuse crimes occurred in the past, are occurring now, and will
continue in the future unless Defendants act decisively to ensure that child safety has a higher
priority than protecting abusive Clergy and the reputation of the Catholic Church. They have not
acted decisively so far. Defendants have failed and refused to properly address Clergy child sex
abuse and compensate the victims—including Plaintiffs and Class Members (and continue to do
so). It is time for the guilty Clergy at all levels to be identified and permanently rooted out of the
Catholic Church, the sexual abuse victims—including Plaintiffs and Class Members—properly
45 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 49 of 85
compensated for their injuries and damages, and comprehensive protocols and procedures instituted to compensate future victims and protect children and their families from abusive
Clergy going forward. This case has resulted.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
111. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendants as a national class action, for themselves and all members of the following Class of similarly situated individuals in the United States and the Territory of the U.S.
Virgin Islands (the “Nationwide Class”):
All persons and if minor children, their parents or guardians on their behalf, who were sexually abused by Catholic Church cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, sisters, lay leaders, members of Catholic religious orders, educators, and other of Defendants’ personnel, members, agents, and representatives (i.e., the “Clergy”), from 1940 to present.
112. Excluded from the Nationwide Class are Defendants, all current and former members and employees of Defendants, Catholic Clergy, and the Court and its personnel.
113. The proposed Nationwide Class consists of over five thousand geographically dispersed members, the joinder of whom in one action is impracticable. The precise number and identities of Class Members are currently unknown to Plaintiffs but are identifiable and readily ascertainable from Defendants’ internal records.
114. Defendants violated the rights of each Class Member in the same way by their and the Clergy’s above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence.
115. Certain questions of law and fact common to the proposed Nationwide Class predominate over any questions affecting individual Class Members, including:
(i) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions constitute assault at common law; (ii) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding
46 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 50 of 85
investigations, and conspiracy of silence constitute breach of fiduciary duty at common law; (iii) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence constitute negligence/gross negligence at common law; (iv) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence constitute negligence per se at common law; (v) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress at common law; (vi) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence constitute a public nuisance at common law; (vii) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence constitute conspiracy at common law; (viii) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence constitute aiding and abetting at common law; (ix) whether Defendants should be compelled to make full restitution to Plaintiffs and Class Members under principles of equity; (x) whether Defendants also are liable to Plaintiffs and Class Members for the Clergy’s above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence under the doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine; (xi) whether Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence directly or proximately caused Plaintiffs and Class Members to suffer physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages; (xii) whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to recover actual damages, consequential damages, compensatory damages, economic damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs and, if so, the amount of the recovery; and
47 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 51 of 85
(xiii) whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a medical monitoring fund for the testing, diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ emotional, psychological, and mental health issues directly and proximately resulting from Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful conduct.
116. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of Class Members’ claims because Plaintiffs and
Class Members are all victims of Clergy child sex abuse and Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence.
117. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of
Class Members. Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interests of any Class Members. Plaintiffs’ counsel are experienced in leading and prosecuting class actions and complex commercial litigation, including complex torts.
118. A class action is superior to all other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims. Plaintiffs and Class Members have been
(and will continue to be) harmed as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence. Litigating this case as a class action is appropriate because (i) it will avoid a multiplicity of suits and the corresponding burden on the courts and Parties, (ii) it would be virtually impossible for all Class Members to intervene as parties-plaintiff in this action, and (iii) it will provide court oversight of the claims process once
Defendants’ liability is adjudicated.
119. Certification, therefore, is appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3) because the
above-described common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting
individual Class Members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy.
48 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 52 of 85
120. Certification also is appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted (or refused to act) on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
121. Certification also is appropriate under FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(1) because the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create a risk of establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. For example, one court might decide that the challenged actions are illegal and enjoin Defendants, while another court might decide that the same actions are not illegal. Individual actions also could be dispositive of the interests of the other Class Members who are not parties to such actions, and substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.
122. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence are applicable to the Class as a whole, for which Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and other equitable remedies.
123. Absent a class action, Defendants will retain the benefits of their wrongdoing despite seriously violating the law and inflicting physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages on Plaintiffs and Class Members.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF/ CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
ASSAULT
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior, Agency Theory, and/or the Command Responsibility Doctrine)
124. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
125. While under Defendants’ employment, command, supervision, direction, and/or control, abusive Clergy abused their positions of power, authority, trust, and confidence, and
49 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 53 of 85
knowingly and/or recklessly instigated and engaged in the inappropriate, unauthorized, forced,
unjustified, and wrongful physical contact and sexual abuse of Plaintiffs and Class Members
when they were minors and without their consent. Defendants thereafter intentionally failed and
refused to report such Clergy child sex abuse to law enforcement or other responsible authorities
as required by law, and intentionally and actively instigated, perpetrated, and participated in
multiple schemes to cover up such sexual abuse.
126. Defendants and the Clergy knew or reasonably should have believed that
Plaintiffs and Class Members would regard the above-described inappropriate, unauthorized,
forced, unjustified physical contact and sexual abuse and subsequent cover-up as wrongful and
offensive, which, in fact, it was (and continues to be), and they do.
127. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up,
deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of
silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and
tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii)
avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-
described wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to
suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury,
harm, and economic damages. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct—while the
abusive Clergy were under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction, and/or
control—constitute assault at common law under the doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine.
50 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 54 of 85
COUNT II
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants Directly and Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior, Agency Theory, and/or the Command Responsibility Doctrine)
129. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
130. While the abusive Clergy were under Defendants’ employ, command,
supervision, direction, and/or control, Plaintiffs and Class Members, as parishioners, trusted the
Clergy and other of Defendants’ members, officers, employees, agents and representatives who
sexually abused them to provide them with sound spiritual guidance and act in Plaintiffs’ and
Class Members’ best interests. The Clergy and Defendants’ members, officers, employees,
agents and representatives who sexually abused Plaintiffs and Class Members were in positions
of power and influence over Plaintiffs and Class Members. Such personal and moral
relationships between Plaintiffs and Class Members, on the one hand, and the Clergy and
Defendants, on the other hand, were confidential, special, and fiduciary relationships, pursuant to
which Defendants had a duty to, inter alia, guide, lead, and protect Plaintiffs and Class
Members, not allow them to be sexually abused by the Clergy, conceal the Clergy’s wrongful conduct when discovered, move the abusive Clergy from parish to parish, without warning church members or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices,
refuse to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as
required by law, and even promote the abusive Clergy. Plaintiffs and Class Members expected
and, in fact, trusted Defendants and the Clergy to engage in lawful and appropriate relationships
with them and, in fact, Defendants and the Clergy were well-aware of Plaintiffs’ and Class
Members’ expectations of trust and confidence that Defendants and the Clergy would do so.
51 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 55 of 85
131. As fiduciaries, Defendants and the Clergy owed Plaintiffs and Class Members (i) the
commitment to deal fairly and honestly, (ii) the duties of good faith and undivided loyalty, and (iii)
integrity of the strictest kind. Defendants and the Clergy were obligated to exercise the highest
degree of care in carrying out their above-described obligations to Plaintiffs and Class Members as
spiritual leaders and confidants under the Parties’ confidential, special, and fiduciary relationships.
132. Defendants and the Clergy, however, breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members by, inter alia, (i) knowingly and/or recklessly instigating and engaging in, facilitating, and/or allowing the inappropriate, unauthorized, forced, unjustified, and wrongful rape and sexual abuse of Plaintiffs and Class Members when they were minors and without their consent (both), (ii) intentionally failing and refusing to report such wrongful child sexual abuse to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law (Defendants), and (iii) intentionally and actively instigating, perpetrating, and participating in multiple schemes to cover up such wrongful child sexual abuse (Defendants). In breaching their duties to Plaintiffs and
Class Members, Defendants acted intentionally, wantonly, recklessly, and with a complete disregard for Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights and interests, and the consequences of their actions.
133. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii) avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
52 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 56 of 85
134. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-
described wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to
suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury,
harm, compensatory, and economic damages. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct—
while the abusive Clergy were under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction,
and/or control—constitutes breach of fiduciary duty at common law, both directly and under the
doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine.
COUNT III
NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants Directly and Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior, Agency Theory, and/or the Command Responsibility Doctrine)
135. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
136. To establish a negligence claim, there must be (i) a legal duty on the part of the
defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct to protect others against unreasonable
risks, (ii) a breach of that duty, (iii) a proximate cause between the conduct and the resulting
injury, and (iv) actual damages to the claimant’s person or property. Foreseeability that an injury
might result from the act complained of normally serves as the paramount factor in determining
the existence of a duty. When deciding if some injury was reasonably foreseeable, whether
expressly or implicitly, courts examine what the actor knew or should have known.
137. Defendants knew that if they failed to exercise reasonable care and safeguard and
protect Plaintiffs and Class Members—rather than facilitate and allow them to be sexually
abused as minors by the Clergy, conceal the Clergy’s wrongful conduct when discovered, move the abusive Clergy from parish to parish, without warning church members or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices, refuse to report the abusive Clergy to law
53 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 57 of 85
enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law (and even promote the abusive
Clergy), and fail and refuse to institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward—that
Plaintiffs and Class Members would suffer the physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages they, in fact, have suffered
(and will continue to suffer).
138. It was also imminently foreseeable to Defendants that if they failed to exercise reasonable care and safeguard and protect Plaintiffs and Class Members—rather than facilitate and allow them to be sexually abused as minors by the Clergy, conceal the Clergy’s wrongful conduct when discovered, move the abusive Clergy from parish to parish, without warning church members or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices, refuse to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law (and even promote the abusive Clergy), and fail and refuse to institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward—that Plaintiffs and Class Members would suffer the physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages they, in fact, have suffered (and will continue to suffer). There is no
other foreseeable group of individuals who would be directly and/or proximately injured or harmed by Defendants’ and the Clergy’s above-described wrongful conduct other than Plaintiffs and Class Members, the Clergy child sex abuse victims.
139. As such, Defendants had (and continue to have) a legal duty to Plaintiffs and
Class Members to comply with certain standards of conduct and, inter alia, (i) safeguard and protect Plaintiffs and Class Members from Clergy sexual predators, (ii) discipline known offenders (rather than harboring them, protecting them, and moving them from parish to parish
54 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 58 of 85
and covering up and further facilitating their abhorrent behavior), (iii) report sexual predator
Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, (iv) institute
policies of transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known Clergy with
plausible allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding documents and
information, and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’ employ, (v)
publicly admit their wrongdoing, (vi) personally apologize to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and
(vii) institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect
children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward.
140. Defendants duty to comply with these standards of conduct and protect Plaintiffs
and Class Members from the physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and
consequential injury, harm, and economic damages they, in fact, have suffered (and will continue
to suffer) at the hands of Defendants and the Clergy also arose out of the above-described
fiduciary relationships and relationships of trust and confidence between the parties resting on
sound public policy as derived from a calculus of factors, including, inter alia, the (i) social and theological consensus that clergy/parishioner relationships—especially when the parishioners are vulnerable minors—are sacred and worthy of protection (they are), (ii) foreseeability of the physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages that Plaintiffs and Class Members, in fact, have suffered (and will continue to suffer) at the hands of Defendants and the Clergy, (iii) moral blame society attaches to the sexual abuse of minor children by the Clergy and other powerful persons in leadership positions (it’s severely disfavored), and (iv) prevention of future physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages to the
victims and future victims (i.e., future injury and harm could (and very well will) occur if
Defendants fail to, inter alia, (a) protect minor children from abusive Clergy, (b) end their
55 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 59 of 85
policies, procedures, and schemes of moving abusive Clergy from parish to parish and covering
up their wrongful conduct, (c) discipline known offending Clergy, (d) report sexual predator
Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, (e) institute
policies of transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known Clergy with
plausible allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding documents and
information, and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’ employ, (f) publicly admit their wrongdoing, and (g) institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward.).
141. Defendants duty to comply with these standards of conduct and protect Plaintiffs and Class Members from the physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages they, in fact, have suffered (and will continue to suffer) at the hands of Defendants and the Clergy also arose out of canon law and the
customary international law regarding human rights and various human rights conventions,
including, inter alia, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which Defendant Holy See signed and ratified.
142. Defendants negligently, or in a grossly negligent manner, breached their common law, moral, and other duties to Plaintiffs and Class Members by, inter alia, failing to (i) safeguard and protect Plaintiffs and Class Members from Clergy sexual predators, (ii) properly hire, direct, supervise, and/or control the abusive Clergy, (iii) discipline known offenders (rather than harboring them, protecting them, and moving them from parish to parish and covering up and further facilitating their abhorrent behavior), (iv) report sexual predator Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, (v) institute policies of transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known Clergy with plausible allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding documents and information,
56 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 60 of 85
and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’ employ, (vi) publicly admit their wrongdoing, (vii) personally apologize to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and (viii) institute
comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect children and their
families from abusive Clergy going forward.
143. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up,
deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of
silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and
tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii)
avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
144. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-
described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment,
obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence, negligence, and gross
negligence, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical
and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and
economic damages. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct—while the abusive Clergy
were under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction, and/or control—constitutes negligence and gross negligence at common law, both directly and under the doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine.
COUNT IV
NEGLIGENCE PER SE
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants)
145. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
57 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 61 of 85
146. The following state statutes require all persons with knowledge of child sex abuse to report such abuse to law enforcement or other responsible authorities:
Ala. Code § 26-14-3(a); (f)
Alaska Stat. § 47.17.020(d)
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3620(A); (L)
Ark. Code §§ 12-18-402; 12-18-803(b)
Cal. Penal Code §§ 11166(d); 11165.7(a)(32)-(33)
Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-90-107(1)(c); 19-3-304(2)(aa)
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101(b)
Del. Code Tit. 16, §§ 903; 909
Fla. Stat. §§ 39.201(1); 39.204
Ga. Code § 19-7-5
Idaho Code § 16-1605
325 Ill. Com. Stat. § 5/4; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/8-803
Ind. Code § 31-33-5-1
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 620.030(1), (3)
La. Children’s Code Art. 603(17)(b)-(c)
Me. Rev. Stat. Tit. 22, § 4011-A(1)(A)(27) Md. Code Fam. Law § 5-705(a)(1), (a)(3)
Tenn. Code § 37-1-403(a) Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 119, §§ 21; § 51A(j)
Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 722.623; 722.631
Minn. Stat. § 626.556, Subd. 3(a)
Miss. Code § 43-21-353(1)
58 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 62 of 85
Mo. Stat. §§ 210.140; 210.115; 352.400
Mont. Code §§ 15-6-201(2)(b); 41-3-201(2)(h), (5)(b)
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-711
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 432B.220(3)(d)
N.H. Rev. Stat. §§ 169-C:29; 169-C:32
N.J. Stat. § 9:6-8.10
N.M. Stat. § 32A-4-3(A)
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-301; 7B-310
N.D. Cent. Code § 50-25.1-03(1)
Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2151.421(A)(4)(b)-(d); 2151.421(A)(4)(a)
Okla. Stat. Tit. 10A, § 1-2-101
Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 419B.005(3)(h); 419B.010(1)
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 6311(a); 6311.1
R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 40-11-11; 40-11-3(a)
S.C. Code § 63-7-420
Tenn. Code § 37-1-605(a)
Tex. Fam. Code § 261.101
Utah Code § 62A-4a-403
Vt. Stat. Tit. 33, §§ 4913(a), (h)-(i); 4912(12)
Va. Code § 63.2-1509
Wash. Rev. Code §§ 26.44.030(7); 26.44.060(3)
W.Va. Code §§ 49-2-811; 49-2-803
59 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 63 of 85
Wis. Stat. § 48.981(2)(b)
Wyo. Stat. § 14-3-205(a)
Wyo. Stat. § 14-3-210
147. Moreover, the 1917 Code made “adultery, debauchery, bestiality, sodomy,
pandering, [and] incest” ecclesial crimes. The 1917 Code specifically made it a crime for Clergy
to have sexual relations or relationships with children under the age of sixteen. It also mandated,
without reservation, the suspension of guilty clerics and removal from any office, and “in more
serious cases,” deposition. The 1983 Code goes even further, expressly forbidding Clergy child
sex abuse and directing that “civil laws to which the law of the Church yields are to be observed
in canon law with the same effects,” which requires both laity and clergy to report civil crimes to
civil authorities as a matter of canon law.
148. By their above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up,
deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of
silence—more specifically, Defendants’ failure to report the above-described Clergy child sex
abuse to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law—Defendants
violated (and continue to violate) the above-listed statutes and canon law.
149. By their above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up,
deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of
silence, Defendants also violated (and continue to violate) customary international law regarding human rights and various human rights conventions, including, inter alia, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Defendant Holy See signed and ratified.
150. Plaintiffs and Class Members are clearly within the class of persons the above-
listed statutes, canon law, international law, and human rights conventions are designed to
60 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 64 of 85 protect. The physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages they, in fact, have suffered (and will continue to suffer) at the hands of the Clergy and Defendants are precisely the types of damages, injury, and harm the above-listed statutes, canon law, international law, and human rights conventions are designed to guard against.
151. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii) avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
152. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence, and violations of the above-listed statutes, canon law, international law, and human rights conventions, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct—while the abusive Clergy were under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction, and/or control—constitutes negligence per se at common law, both directly and under the doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine.
61 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 65 of 85
COUNT V
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants Directly and Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior, Agency Theory, and/or the Command Responsibility Doctrine)
153. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
154. Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-described extreme, outrageous, and wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy were committed intentionally and/or recklessly.
155. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii) avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
156. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above- described wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to suffer) severe emotional distress. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct—while the abusive Clergy were under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction, and/or control—constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress, both directly and under the doctrine of respondeat superior, agency theory, and/or the command responsibility doctrine.
62 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 66 of 85
COUNT VI
PUBLIC NUISANCE
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants)
157. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
158. By their above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence, Defendants have taken (and continue to take) affirmative actions to facilitate the sexual abuse of children by the Clergy and conspire to engage, and engage, in ongoing efforts to, inter alia, (i) conceal from the general public the child sexual abuse committed by the Clergy, the identities of the abusive clergy, and the predatory tendencies of the abusive Clergy, (ii) attack the credibility of the victims of the Clergy’s sexual abuse, (iii) protect the abusive Clergy from criminal prosecution for their sexual abuse of children by concealing their wrongful conduct and engaging in a conspiracy of silence, (iv) moving abusive Clergy from parish to parish, without warning church members or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices, (v) failing and refusing to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law (and even promoting the abusive Clergy), and (vi) making affirmative misrepresentations to current or future employers regarding the abusive
Clergy’s fitness for employment in positions that include working with children—while failing to disclose information regarding the sexual misconduct by such predators.
159. The abusive Clergy’s predatory tendencies coupled with Defendants’ facilitation, deception, and concealment of such abuse was (and continues to be) an unreasonable interference with the general public’s common right to the comfortable enjoyment of life because children cannot be left unsupervised in any location where abusive Clergy are present. The general public cannot trust the abusive Clergy and/or the Catholic Church. The general public
63 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 67 of 85
also cannot trust Defendants to, inter alia, (i) prohibit and prevent abusive Clergy from
supervising, caring for, or having any contact with children, (ii) warn parents of the presence of
abusive Clergy, (iii) identify abusive Clergy so as to protect children in the neighborhoods where
the abusive Clergy work and live, and (iv) report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, so they will be criminally prosecuted and identified to the general public as registered sex offenders. Defendants’ secretive conduct also interferes with and causes harm to the general public’s right to know that Defendants have concealed (and continue to conceal) decades of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic Clergy.
160. Defendants’ wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence regarding the sexual misconduct of abusive Clergy has caused (and will continue to cause) injury to the general public and seriously imperil children where Defendants have protected and concealed their predatory Clergy from criminal prosecution and registration as sex offenders in situations where the abusive Clergy voluntarily left Defendants’ employ and/or where Defendants expelled such Clergy from the Catholic Church and disavowed any responsibility for the abusive Clergy’s wrongful conduct even though Defendants shielded them. As a result of Defendants’ above- described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence, when Defendants’ former abusive Clergy have sought employment in positions of trust with children, Defendants are the only ones aware of the risk posed by the former abusive Clergy, and potential employers, childcare custodians, and parents have no means of identifying the risk to their children posed by former Clergy who should be convicted of child sexual abuse and registered as sex offenders.
161. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of
64 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 68 of 85
silence has endangered the welfare of children by placing them in harm’s way, interfered with
the interests of the community, and caused damage to the general public—and continues to do
so. Defendants’ wrongful conduct also has interfered with public health and safety by
victimizing thousands of minor children and causing them severe harm and trauma, both
physically and emotionally, as well as severe harm and trauma to their family members and
friends—and continues to do so. Defendants’ wrongful conduct also has interfered with the public morals by breaching the trust of Catholic Church parishioners and community members and holding themselves up as paragons of virtue and spiritual purity while simultaneously concealing and facilitating the criminal acts of its Clergy—and continue to do so.
162. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence, Defendants have created a public nuisance
whereby Plaintiffs and Class Members were placed in the custody, care, and control of abusive
Clergy and suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering,
and other actual and consequential injury, harm, compensatory, and economic damages.
163. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described wrongful
actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior
regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence, Defendants have created a public nuisance
whereby children in the general public were (and are) unknowingly placed in the custody, care,
and control of abusive Clergy, unaware of the ongoing danger and at a much higher risk than
other children for being sexually abused (and, perhaps, sexually abused by such Clergy).
164. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up,
deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of
silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
65 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 69 of 85
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii) avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
165. The ongoing and continuing public nuisance created by Defendants was, and continues to be, the proximate cause of the above-described injuries and harm to the general public and the above-described special injuries suffered (and continuing to be suffered) by
Plaintiffs and Class Members. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct constitutes the tort of public nuisance at common law.
COUNT VII
CONSPIRACY
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants)
166. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
167. Defendants, the Clergy, and possibly others, either working together as a combined group or in sub-combinations of two or more, affirmatively conspired to engage in the wrongful conduct set forth above. Defendants conspired to commit the wrongful conduct outlined in Counts I-VI, above; to wit, Defendants, the Clergy, and possibly others, either working together as a combined group or in sub-combinations of two or more, entered into one or more agreements to not (i) safeguard and protect Plaintiffs and Class Members from Clergy sexual predators, (ii) properly hire, direct, supervise, and/or control the abusive Clergy, (iii) discipline known offenders (rather than harboring them, protecting them, and moving them from parish to parish and covering up and further facilitating their abhorrent behavior), (iv) report sexual predator Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law,
(v) institute policies of transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known
66 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 70 of 85
Clergy with plausible allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding
documents and information, and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’
employ, (vi) publicly admit their wrongdoing, (vii) personally apologize to Plaintiffs and Class
Members, and (viii) institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and
protect children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward.
168. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up,
deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of
silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and
tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii)
avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
169. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described wrongful
actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior
regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence, and violations of the above-listed statutes, canon law, international law, and human rights conventions, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct—while the abusive Clergy were under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction, and/or control—constitutes conspiracy at common law.
COUNT VIII
AIDING AND ABETTING (ASSISTING, ENCOURAGING, PARTICIPATING AND/OR CONCERT OF ACTION)
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants)
170. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
67 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 71 of 85
171. By failing to, inter alia, (i) safeguard and protect Plaintiffs and Class Members from Clergy sexual predators, (ii) discipline known offenders (rather than harboring them, protecting them, and moving them from parish to parish and covering up and further facilitating their abhorrent behavior), (iii) report sexual predator Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, (iv) institute policies of transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known Clergy with plausible allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding documents and information, and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’ employ, (v) publicly admit their wrongdoing, (vi) personally apologize to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and (vii) institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward, Defendants have aided, abetted, assisted, facilitated, encouraged, participated in, and engaged in a concert of action with the Clergy (and possibly others) to commit child sex abuse, cover it up, wrongfully protect the abusive Clergy, wrongfully protect the reputations, commercial activities, and financial interests of Defendants and the Catholic Church in the
United States, and in the process, inflict severe physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, compensatory, and economic damages on
Plaintiffs and Class Members and put the general public in danger—and continue to do so.
172. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii) avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
68 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 72 of 85
173. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-
described wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to
suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury,
harm, and economic damages. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct—while the abusive Clergy were under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction, and/or control—constitutes aiding and abetting under common law.
COUNT IX
MEDICAL MONITORING
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants)
174. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
175. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-
described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence, Plaintiffs and Class
Members have suffered (and will continue to suffer) severe and traumatic pain, suffering, and emotional, psychological, and mental health issues, including, without limitation, depression, fear, anxiety, nightmares, Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD), alcohol and substance abuse disorders, loss of friends and family, other negatively impacted personal relationships, loss of consortium, loss of employment, suicidal tendencies, and other serious emotional, psychological, and mental health issues.
176. Plaintiffs and Class Members require specialized testing, diagnosis, treatment, and
monitoring for these serious emotional, psychological, and mental health issues. The available
monitoring regime is reasonably necessary according to contemporary scientific principles
within the mental health community specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of these
emotional, psychological, and mental health issues.
69 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 73 of 85
177. By monitoring and testing Plaintiffs and Class Members, any existing emotional,
psychological, and mental health issues may be diagnosed and treated, and the risk they will
suffer long-term emotional, psychological, and mental health issues will be significantly reduced.
178. Plaintiffs, for themselves and Class Members, therefore, seek an injunction
creating a Court-supervised, medical monitoring program funded by Defendants, which will
facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ emotional,
psychological, and mental health issues directly and proximately resulting from Defendants’ (and
the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful conduct. Such program should include a trust fund to
pay for the monitoring and treatment of Plaintiffs and Class Members as frequently and
appropriately as necessary. Plaintiffs and Class Members have no adequate remedy at law in that
monetary damages alone cannot (and would not) compensate them for continuing to suffer from
serious emotional, psychological, and mental health issues and economic losses due to the
wrongful conduct of individuals claiming to be persons of faith in whom Plaintiffs and Class
Members placed their trust and confidence. Without such Court-directed medical monitoring,
Plaintiffs and Class Members will continue to suffer serious emotional, psychological, and mental health issues that, in fact, could (and probably will) worsen.
COUNT X
RESTITUTION
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants Directly and Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior, Agency Theory, and/or the Command Responsibility Doctrine)
179. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
180. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-
described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence, negligence, and gross
70 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 74 of 85
negligence—while the abusive Clergy were under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision,
direction, and/or control—Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to
suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury,
harm, and economic damages. As a matter of justice, equity, and good conscience, therefore,
Defendants should be compelled to make full restitution to Plaintiffs and Class Members in the
form and in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact.
COUNT XI
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class Against Both Defendants Directly and Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior, Agency Theory, and/or the Command Responsibility Doctrine)
181. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
182. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., the Court is
authorized to enter a judgment declaring the Parties’ rights and legal relations and grant further necessary relief based upon such a judgment.
183. An actual controversy exists regarding Defendants’ duty to (i) safeguard and
protect Plaintiffs and Class Members from Clergy sexual predators, (ii) discipline known
offenders (rather than harboring them, protecting them, and moving them from parish to parish
and covering up and further facilitating their abhorrent behavior), (iii) report sexual predator
Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, (iv) institute
policies of transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known Clergy with
plausible allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding documents and
information, and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’ employ, (v)
publicly admit their wrongdoing, (vi) personally apologize to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and
(vii) institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect
71 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 75 of 85
children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward. As a direct and proximate result
of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-
up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of
silence, negligence, and gross negligence—while the abusive Clergy were under Defendants’
employ, command, supervision, direction, and control—Plaintiffs and Class Members have
suffered (and will continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other
actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages unless and until the Court enters
judgment against Defendants and awards Plaintiffs and Class Members their requested relief.
184. DECLARATORY RELIEF. Pursuant to the Court’s authority under the Declaratory
Judgment Act, Plaintiffs and Class Members request the Court to enter a judgment declaring,
inter alia, (i) Defendants owed (and continue to owe) a legal duty to (a) safeguard and protect
Plaintiffs and Class Members from Clergy sexual predators, (b) discipline known offenders
(rather than harboring them, protecting them, and moving them from parish to parish and
covering up and further facilitating their abhorrent behavior), (c) report sexual predator Clergy to
law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, (d) institute policies of
transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known Clergy with plausible
allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding documents and information,
and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’ employ, (e) publicly admit their wrongdoing, (f) personally apologize to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and (g) institute
comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect children and their
families from abusive Clergy going forward; (ii) by their above-described wrongful actions,
inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding
investigations, conspiracy of silence, negligence, and gross negligence, Defendants breached
(and continue to breach) such duty; (iii) Defendants’ breach of such duty directly and
72 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 76 of 85 proximately caused Plaintiffs, Class Members, and the general public to suffer (and continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and/or damages; (iv) Plaintiffs and Class Members are legally entitled to recover compensation from Defendants for such physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages; and (v) Defendants’ above- referenced wrongful conduct forming the basis of Defendants’ public nuisance and Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief actually occurred.
185. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Defendants’ failure to report and account for the rape and sexual abuse of children by its Clergy is a direct violation of the reporting statutes set forth in
Count IV, above, which require Defendants to report any known or suspected child abuse.
Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence also constitute a public nuisance throughout the United States that must be remedied. Defendants’ failure to notify law enforcement or other responsible authorities about known or suspected child predators as required by law constitutes a clear and present threat to public safety, an unreasonable interference with rights, and a public nuisance (as set forth above) that can, and should, be remedied by this Court via injunctive relief.
186. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above- described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence, negligence, and gross negligence, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and will continue to suffer) irreparable harm in the form of, inter alia, physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages. Such irreparable harm will not cease unless and until enjoined by this Court.
73 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 77 of 85
187. Plaintiffs, therefore, on behalf of themselves and Class Members, request the
Court to enter an injunction compelling Defendants to:
(i) immediately comply with the above-referenced statutory reporting requirements for all past and future cases of Clergy child sex abuse; (ii) terminate the above-described ongoing and continuing public nuisance created by Defendants’ failure to (a) safeguard and protect Plaintiffs and Class Members from Clergy sexual predators, (b) discipline known offenders (rather than harboring them, protecting them, and moving them from parish to parish and covering up and further facilitating their abhorrent behavior), (c) report sexual predator Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, (d) institute policies of transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known Clergy with plausible allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding documents and information, and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’ employ, (e) publicly admit their wrongdoing, (f) personally apologize to Plaintiffs and Class Members, and (g) institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and protect children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward; (iii) make a full and complete disclosure of all records and information in their possession, custody or control, from 1940 to the present regarding the rape and sexual abuse of children by the Clergy. Plaintiffs further request the Court to (a) appoint a special master to ensure that sensitive information about the Clergy abuse victims remains confidential (unless such information is authorized to be released by a victim), and (b) establish protocols and procedures for Clergy abuse victims to review Defendants’ or others’ records pertaining to them to verify that they exist, are complete and accurate, and are available to be reviewed by law enforcement and other government officials;
(iv) issue notice approved by Plaintiffs and the Court to Clergy child sex abuse victims of their right and opportunity to provide additional information as victims or witnesses of Clergy child sex abuse, such notice to be paid for by Defendants. Plaintiffs further request the Court to establish protocols and procedures for Clergy child sex abuse victims and witnesses to provide such information and place such protocols and procedures under the authority of the special master; and
(v) establish a medical monitoring fund as set forth above.
188. The injunctive relief sought by Plaintiffs will fill in the gaps in the public record
by the immediate, complete, and accurate disclosure of sexual predators known to be dangerous to children, and provide a critical source of information for parents and childcare providers to best protect the children for whom they are responsible, as well as allow them to freely enjoy community and church activities without fear of being exposed to sexual predator Clergy with a
74 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 78 of 85 known history of abusing children. The disclosure of the identities of persons who Defendants know are dangerous child predators also will provide some redress for the injury and harm
Clergy abuse victims have suffered (and will continue to suffer) because of Defendants’ (and the
Clergy’s) wrongful conduct. Defendants’ failure to take responsibility for their wrongful conduct and ongoing and continuing cover-up causes additional injury and harm to Clergy abuse victims each day over and above the injury and harm they already have suffered at the hands of
Defendants and the abusive Clergy.
189. Plaintiffs and Class Members have no adequate remedy at law in that monetary damages alone cannot (and would not) compensate them for the physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages directly and proximately caused by Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful conduct.
190. The hardship to Plaintiffs and Class Members if an injunction does not issue exceeds the hardship to Defendants if an injunction is issued. Defendants’ longstanding failure and refusal to report and release evidence proving a victim’s accusations of Clergy child sex abuse is undeniably punitive. It pits Clergy sexual abuse victims against the denials of formidable authority figures and leads to years of emotional and psychological harm. If, however, the facts are made public, victims are somewhat protected against the inevitable torment and self-blame rises to the surface when memories of sexual abuse are disputed by powerful perpetrators. Better yet, it insures victims the right to proper mental health treatment.
Accurate diagnosis and suitable treatment are preluded when accusations remain purposely unverified and the truth is suppressed. On the other hand, Defendants’ cost of complying with the requested injunction requiring, for example, Defendants to report Clergy child sex abuse to law enforcement or other responsible authorities (which they are already required to do), is relatively minimal.
75 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 79 of 85
191. Issuance of the requested injunction will not disserve the public interest. To the
contrary, it would end the above-described public nuisance, protect children and their families from Clergy child sex abuse going forward, and be a major step in the right direction toward the healing of Clergy sex abuse victims.
RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR/AGENCY
192. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
193. Defendants also are liable for their current and former Clergy’s above-described wrongful conduct and child sex abuse committed by the Clergy during the course and scope of their employment and while the Clergy was under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction, and control and the Clergy’s respective representation of Defendants under the doctrine of respondeat superior and/or agency theory; to wit, such wrongful conduct was committed (i) within the Clergy’s general authority while the Clergy was under Defendants’
employ, command, supervision, direction, and/or control, (ii) in furtherance of Defendants’
operations and commercial activity in the United States, and (iii) while accomplishing the
objectives for which the Clergy were hired.
194. Defendants’ above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up,
deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of
silence regarding Clergy child sex abuse and abusive Clergy furthered (and continue to further)
Defendants’ interests by, inter alia, (i) suppressing negative publicity so as to maintain the
“Christian” reputation of Defendants and the Catholic Church, maintain their membership and
tithing base, maintain the flow of contributions from their parishioners and other donors, and (ii)
avoiding the payment of compensation to Clergy child sex abuse victims.
195. Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct—while the abusive Clergy were
under Defendants’ employ, command, supervision, direction, and/or control—directly and
76 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 80 of 85
proximately caused Plaintiffs and Class Members to suffer (and continue to suffer) physical
and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other actual and consequential injury, harm, and
economic damages.
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY DOCTRINE
196. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
197. Defendants also are liable for their current and former Clergy’s above-described wrongful conduct and Clergy child sex abuse committed while the Clergy was under
Defendants’ command, supervision, direction, and/or control under the command responsibility doctrine. The command responsibility doctrine holds superiors liable for their subordinates’
wrongful conduct where, as here, with effective and/or de facto control over their subordinates,
the superiors knew or should have known about such wrongful conduct and failed to respond appropriately or punish their subordinates in the face of an affirmative duty.
198. As set forth above, and under the hierarchy, management, and operations of the
Catholic Church, including Defendant Holy See’s command, supervision, direction, and/or control of Defendant USCCB and the Catholic Church in the United States, and Defendant
USCCB’s command, supervision, direction, and/or control of the Catholic Church in the United
States, Defendants had (and continue to have) command, supervision, direction, and/or control of the abusive Clergy. As further set forth above, Defendants know and, in fact, have known for decades about the above-described rampant child rape and sexual abuse committed by Catholic
Clergy in the United States. As further set forth above, Defendants had (and continue have) an affirmative duty to protect children in Catholic Church parishes and the surrounding communities, yet failed (and continue to fail) to take reasonable and necessary measures to, inter alia, (i) safeguard and protect Plaintiffs and Class Members from Clergy sexual predators, (ii) discipline known offenders (rather than harboring them, protecting them, and moving them from
77 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 81 of 85
parish to parish and covering up and further facilitating their abhorrent behavior), (iii) report
sexual predator Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law,
(iv) institute policies of transparency, disclosing in the public record the names of all known
Clergy with plausible allegations of sexual misconduct against, releasing all corresponding
documents and information, and terminating and expelling such offenders from Defendants’
employ, and (v) institute comprehensive protocols and procedures to compensate victims and
protect children and their families from abusive Clergy going forward.
199. Defendants, therefore, are liable for their current and former Clergy’s above-
described wrongful conduct and child sex abuse under the command responsibility doctrine.
TOLLING OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION
200. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
201. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT. Defendants took active steps to conceal their (and
the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and
concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence. The details of
Defendants’ efforts to conceal their (and the Clergy’s) above-described unlawful conduct are in
their possession, custody, and control, to the exclusion of Plaintiffs, and await further discovery.
When some of this material information was revealed to Plaintiffs, they exercised due diligence
by investigating the situation, retaining counsel, and pursuing their claims. Defendants
fraudulently concealed their (and the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful conduct. Should such
be necessary, therefore, all applicable statutes of limitation (if any) are tolled under the
fraudulent concealment doctrine.
202. EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. Defendants took active steps to conceal their (and the
Clergy’s) above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence. The details of
78 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 82 of 85
Defendants’ efforts to conceal their (and the Clergy’s) above-described unlawful conduct are in
their possession, custody, and control, to the exclusion of Plaintiffs, and await further discovery.
When some of this material information was revealed to Plaintiffs, they exercised due diligence
by investigating the situation, retaining counsel, and pursuing their claims. Defendants
intentionally concealed their (and the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful conduct. Should such
be necessary, therefore, all applicable statutes of limitation (if any) are tolled under the doctrine
of equitable estoppel.
203. EQUITABLE TOLLING. Defendants took active steps to conceal their (and the
Clergy’s) above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and
concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence. The details of
Defendants’ efforts to conceal their (and the Clergy’s) above-described unlawful conduct are in
their possession, custody, and control, to the exclusion of Plaintiffs, and await further discovery.
When some of this material information was revealed to Plaintiffs, they exercised due diligence
by investigating the situation, retaining counsel, and pursuing their claims. Defendants
intentionally concealed their (and the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful conduct. Should such be necessary, therefore, all applicable statutes of limitation (if any) are tolled under the doctrine of equitable tolling.
RELIEF REQUESTED
204. The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated by reference.
205. ACTUAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, COMPENSATORY, AND ECONOMIC DAMAGES
AND/OR RESTITUTION. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-
described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered (and continue to suffer) physical and/or mental injury, pain, suffering, and other
79 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 83 of 85
actual and consequential injury, harm, and economic damages—for which they are entitled to compensation. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to equitable relief in the form of restitution. All damages, injury, and harm suffered (and to be suffered) by Plaintiffs and
Class Members were reasonably foreseeable by Defendants. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’
and Class Members’ claims for relief have been performed or occurred.
206. PUNITIVE DAMAGES. Defendants’ (and the Clergy’s) above-described wrongful actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, conspiracy of silence were committed willfully, wantonly, and with
reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ rights and interests. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
and Class Members also are entitled to punitive damages from Defendants as punishment and to
discourage such wrongful conduct in the future. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ and Class
Members’ claims for relief have been performed or occurred.
207. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. Plaintiffs and Class Members also are
entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief set forth above, including, without limitation, a
medical monitoring fund for the testing, diagnosis, and treatment of their emotional,
psychological, and mental health issues directly and proximately resulting from Clergy child sex
abuse and Defendants’ above-described wrongful conduct. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’
and Class Members’ claims for relief have been performed or occurred.
208. ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES AND COSTS. Plaintiffs and Class
Members also are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs in
prosecuting this action. All conditions precedent to Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ claims for attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs have been performed or occurred.
WHERFORE, Plaintiffs, for themselves and Class Members, respectfully request that (i)
Defendants be cited to appear and answer this lawsuit, (ii) this action be certified as a class action,
80 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 84 of 85
(iii) Plaintiffs be designated the Class Representatives, and (iv) Plaintiffs’ counsel be appointed
Class Counsel. Plaintiffs, for themselves and Class Members, also request that upon final trial or
hearing, judgment be awarded against Defendants in Plaintiffs’ favor for:
(i) actual, consequential, and compensatory damages (or, in the alternative, restitution) in an amount to be determined at trial;
(ii) economic damages in the form of medical expenses, out of pocket expenses, lost earnings, and other economic damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
(iii) punitive damages;
(iv) declaratory and injunctive relief (as set forth above), including, without limitation, the establishment of a medical monitoring fund for the testing, diagnosis, and treatment of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ emotional, psychological, and mental health issues directly and proximately resulting from Clergy child sex abuse and Defendants’ wrongful conduct;
(v) pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest legal rates;
(vi) attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and court costs through the trial and any appeals of this case; and
(vii) such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs, for themselves and all others similarly situated, respectfully demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Date: March 27, 2019
Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Henry C. Quillen Henry C. Quillen (D.C. Bar #986686) WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 159 Middle Street, Suite 2C Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 294-1591 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 Email: [email protected]
81 Case 1:18-cv-02618-PLF Document 26 Filed 03/27/19 Page 85 of 85
Richard L. Coffman (admitted pro hac vice) THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM First City Building 505 Orleans St., Fifth Floor Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 833-7700 Facsimile: (866) 835-8250 Email: [email protected]
Mitchell A. Toups (admitted pro hac vice) WELLER, GREEN TOUPS & TERRELL, LLP 2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400 Beaumont, TX 77702 Telephone: (409) 838-0101 Facsimile: (409) 838-6780 Email: [email protected]
Joe R. Whatley, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7011 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 Email: [email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS
82